Horace wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:05 am
In a recent discussion, I was surprised to realize, that some people think, a single unit of motion (UoM) can observe itself and self-determine whether its spatial or temporal aspect is increasing or decreasing, by utilizing
only its own reciprocal aspect as a reference - this means: WITHOUT a reference to another unit of motion playing the role of an observer.
An example of this is the notion, that a single isolated out/out UoM can somehow self-determine, that it is different from an in/in UoM.
...or that a single isolated in/out UoM can somehow self-determine, that it is different from an out/in UoM.
I think that such absolute self-referential observations are impossible
from within the RST universe on one UoM basis, ...unless one has some kind of external view of this universe (i.e. god's view).
In other words, all observations
within the RST universe are relative. This means, that all observations inside the RST universe require at least two units of motion, where one plays the role of the observer and the other one - observee (they can swap these roles, of course).
The corollary of this is that without an observer, the properties of an isolated UoM cannot be determined within the confines of the RST universe. Whatever cannot be determined is INDETERMINATE by definition.
I am seeking arguments against or supporting my conclusions stated above.
In support of: in/out seems the first distinction beyond motionlessness (undefined) such that some kind of reference is needed beyond even itself.
To borrow Mr. Larson's analogy: in order to have motion, taking a box as an example, you have to have an inside, and an outside. The inside is time, the outside is space and/or vice versa. With no box, thus no in/out of, there is no space/time, thus no motion/box. Therefor, the first distinction is 'in/out' as it maps with 'space/time' giving four valid values: in/out of space, in/out of time which allows for displacement(s) if also given a fixed unity c. I am trying to extrapolate this first distinction into a primordial 'in towards/out from' which necessitates a subject/object/particulate, though not necessarily a real one.
However, if we allow the single unit of motion to be a human being whose impetus is captured in/as a single life "unit" say, over the course of a solar year(s), can the same be true? I am not so sure what the best way of going about this is, but I approach it in this way (if forgiving use of notation):
v = s/t
(all displacement(s) in-and-of v
from c = 1/1 are captured)
Let's assume v is unaware of a reference point 1/1
(ie. speed of light, god's view, unity etc. etc.):
√v → ±c
v = s/1, 1/t
√v = s/√1, √1/t
√v = (s/+1, s/-1), (+1/t, -1/t)
v = √(s/+1, s/-1), √(+1/t, -1/t)
viz. √(all or not
space), √(all or not
time)
viz. √(+all or -not), √(3s/1t ↔ +c- ↔ 1s/3t)
I see a universal binary here: a kind of primordial 1-0 as it pertains to +all/-not:
all ± (space and time)
not ± (space and time)
which need not apply to physical phenomena, but all metaphysical and/or even
imaginary (i).
For example: the imagined root of a belief-based ignorance will have a null "real" value in s/t, but an imaginary i value in/of v itself such that it should govern their motion(s) as v = s/t.
Because motionlessness is
undefined in a universe of motion, all motion is s/t, thus emerges v as v=s/t.
If all motion is thus valid therein, one must begin with first distinction(s):
motion/
motionlessness (latter undefined)
space/time (=v as speed)
±in/±out (if even locally unknown)
+all/-not (operators)
+causation/-cessation (roots)
etc.
Thus I see an
internal coordinate system intrinsic to v as it concerns c. If setting:
v = √(+all, -not), √(+causation, -cessation) as it pertains (or not) to real s/t phenomena,
it seems enough to serve as a universal axis and/or conduit for
metaphysical orientation(s), as far as I can see...
bperet wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:17 am
Observation can only be done in extension space (3D coordinate space), as that is how our physical senses work. This requires a bit more than just an observer and observed location, you also need another location to determine which way is "up" to establish a coordinate system.
A UoM cannot be self-referential; that's a "divide by zero" situation, as a vector requires a length to BE a vector, and if locations are coincident, then all you have is a scalar magnitude, so no direction is possible and without direction, no way to establish a coordinate system for observation.
...what if observation is not performed in extension space, but in extension time; thus not with physical senses, but with metaphysical? The rest is still true: would still need at least one pole to ground to. However, suppose a UofM can be self-referential if/when given a fixed vector length that is intrinsic to the UofM itself. For example, a body which is uniformly subject to the fixed solar cycle (thus taken as t^2 by default, a rotating scalar whose beginning/end "follows" it wherever it goes).
Metaphysically, if we took the same v and used:
v = √(+all, -not), √(to +believe, to -know)
can we say 'to know all thus: not to believe' is "up",
whereas 'to believe all thus: not to know' is "down"?
say:
t^1 = 24h day......................{} 3d/1d s/t
t^2 = solar year (avg. 72)...{} 2d/2d conduit
t^3 = 25 920 great year.......{} 1d/3d s/t
somehow be modeled? Like:
-√v
-↓(to know).....
→(+all)↔(v=s/t)↔(-not)
+↑(to believe).....
+√v
_________________________________
√-A = {to know all thus not to believe...} tends towards any possible all-knowing 'state' theist/atheist
-invariant
√+A = {to believe all thus not to know...} tends towards any possible 180-degree inversion(s) (ie. suffering/death)
This seems spacetime-
invariant to me (ie. spatially one-dimensional), thus either "grounds" into real knowledge or imaginary belief,
wherein only one of those has the capacity to invert a perception up-to 180-degrees: belief. Doesn't it seem to hold that true "believers" seem to end up having it precisely upside-down? There is certainly a connection here to belief and inversion which RS(2) should be able to exploit, having such a strong foundation in physical phenomena - the one- and two-dimensional geometries of such basic orientation systems
must hold in a universe of motion.
The reason I am trying to relate all of this together is I believe it is possible to develop a (meta)physical orientation system whose theoretical framework is both: already implied/laid by the material sector, and whose efficacy has the capacity to create a natural bridge between the material/physical and cosmic/metaphysical. Further I believe it is possible to prove that such a universal pole(s)
does metaphysically exist, orientation to which can cease suffering (and perhaps death).