Edward E. Rochon
Edward E. Rochon on Shakespir
Copyright © 2017 by Edward E. Rochon
Thank you for downloading this eBook. This book may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, unless prior permission is given by the author.
Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.
Some Other Works by the Author
[Axioms & Theorems: An Essay
Brain Damage: An Essay
Clitwits & G-Spots: An Essay
Cubics: A Numbers Essay
EMF Banding Model
Ethereal Mea Culpa
Global Warming: An Essay
God & Square Roots
God & Square Roots II
Holographic TV: An Essay
The JU Engine
Pest Control: An Essay
Pollution Solution: An Essay
Pollution Soup Cook: An Essay
Seven Month Pregnancy: An Essay
Super Intelligence: An Essay]
Table of Contents
Some ideas expressed in various essays concerning physics, metaphysics and mathematical precepts make the basis for this essay. You may have heard of Zeno of Elea and his paradoxes, passed down to us in incomplete form and commented upon by others. These pointedly attack the ideas of a continuum of motion, continuum of transformation or metamorphosis of matter, and the existence of a continuum other than as a macroatom. I have borrowed some of these points and employed them for my own purposes that do accept motion as reality, and the validity of mathematical analysis based upon parts to the whole (the very foundation of arithmetic) and the corollary of that for time and with some qualification for space. Space is a difficult problem.
Using diagrams, we point out some Zeno-doxologies. In contrast to the paradox, we show that absolutes of geometry and arithmetic form a doxology of truth founded upon axioms rather than faith or opinion. We call these Zenodoxes as there is absolutely nothing paradoxical about them, and so contrasted with the Paradoxes of Zeno.
Chapter 1: Absolutes
We hear in modern physics and philosophy that everything is relative: space, time, ethics. Focusing in on science where definable terms are apt, we show arguments refuting this relativity supposition. Isaac Newton and his physics approach accepted absolute space and time, and as corollary, absolute motion, velocity, degrees of measurement of all sorts. We concur and go about it in the following particular ways. Space is a difficult matter. Absolute time, material ratios of matter, geometry, motion and velocity are easier to deal with. We start with these. We have made a diagram of a finite framework with a set of parts that stand for objects in space, with space fused to substance (matter takes up space) and let their motion within the framework rest on the evidence of motion in life.
Fig 1: Identity Absolutes & Ratios
Things exist in the physical universe before us. They are parts or elements of subsets of larger sets, with ratios of proportions, magnitudes of all sorts (motion, mass, extension). They are similar or dissimilar to varying degrees. These elements of sets are the objects of mathematics, and the structure of mathematics, the one to the many, are coexistent with, and necessarily in one to one correspondence with numbers of math: this by the definition of numbers and objects in space.
Yes, we must accept necessary relationships in philosophy, metaphysical and physical. It is fact that A is A and that A = A. The one follows from the other. There is a necessary correlation between definition and object of definition. A tabby cat is just that, a tabby cat in the flesh. The chimera has a definite relationship to its supposition. The English description is correlate to the French, German, Chinese description. The proportions, body parts, valid terms used to describe it are all real and necessarily conform to their nature as defined and/or as they exist as objects. The self-contradiction of the arguments against what has just been stated, the arguer’s error and the contextual errors of such a refutation are evident to the mind. Scoundrels can lie to bemuse, confuse, justify mendacity, avoid truth, justify delusions, and sybaritic feel good lifestyles. It does not matter. Necessity is axiomatic in philosophy when properly employed.
We can say that:
One: Things are what they are absolutely moment by moment.
Two: Events occur as they occur absolutely as defined by any arbitrary time constraint.
Three: Defined relationships are what they are by definition.
All three assertions are identities with respect to form, occurrence and context. Now, things clearly happen in reality. We may define or describe them inaccurately. Yet, errors in definition and description do not invalidate the thing, the deed, the actual circumstances.
Going to our diagram above, all of these objects exist exactly as they do in proportion, mass, and relationship to the other objects. They all have ratios with respect to event timelines, proportions juxtaposed, and all relationships validly conceived.
All possible events involving motion and juxtaposition happen just as they happen. All attributes of objects and events have absolute relationships to each other and to every other. Since both numerator and denominator of the ratios are absolute by identity of things and events, all ratios strung out in any number of comparisons are also absolute.
We also note that the arbitrary perimeter of our square is definable by every single object within the square. We have the analytical geometric center of the square defined from its perimeter as the intersection of the the diagonal lines from the respective vertex pairs in opposition. These diagonal lines have translation coordinates to any and every object within the square. We can pick the center of the circles, squares, etc. We could pick any vertices, tangent point on curves to do this. The arbitrary perimeter of the inertial frame is definable from all points and objects. These are all absolute and demonstrably provable.
From perimeter to perimeter, event line to event line, there is nothing relative other than in the sense of relationships that exist absolutely as the defined relationships. We have the sense of the word relative referring to no fixed, determined, certainly known point of reference. This does not make relationships themselves relative. All relationships are absolute. It is only our limited determination of reference points that alter the matter. Things are relative because we are ignorant, or at any rate do not care what the absolute reference points are for the particular matter.
With respect to the perimeter itself, all relationships to the set of objects are absolute. With respect to expanding the perimeter by attachment or extension of sides, the attachments and extensions are also absolute with respect to the original perimeter. This goes on without limitation. There is no place for relative anything in the current relativistic way of thinking (Einstein.)
We can see that the notion that everything is relative in the above sense of the absolute, is absolute nonsense. You end up saying that ‘everything is relative’ is an absolute fact. What an absurdity! There are absolutes or there are not. And the term ‘relative’ has no meaning without reference to absolute, any more than the term ‘left’ has any significance without reference to the term ‘right’. They are an inextricably bound pair of terms. If you suppose, yes, but only in theory is there absolute time, extension and substance, our above diagram clearly points out that you are wrong. Your assertion violates the identity principle of logic and is absurd. The fact that your watch is not accurate does not remove absolute time from the cosmos.
Moving on to the matter of the arbitrary perimeter of the diagram, we note that it is indeed arbitrary. And this brings up the matter of the totality of space. Any attempt to put a boundary on space leads to a quandary. What is on the other side of the boundary? We are reduced to saying that it is the infinite, that nevertheless, being infinite, is also on the other side of the boundary. Well, is space bounded or not? We have clear evidence that it is not. We have clear mathematical proof by logical exclusion that infinity is indivisible, cannot be composed of parts. We must conclude our diagram coexists with infinity but is not part of it. Finite space is not infinite space. The two are distinct in definition. They have different definitions. The finite definition is positively asserted, empirically observed, logically coherent. The infinite definition is negatively (by exclusion) asserted, beyond view and impossible to empirically observe, yet logically coherent by exclusion.
Just because something is not a part of something, does not mean that it cannot share relationships with that other something. We note the following:
Finite objects have finite space fused into their being.
This finite space cannot move or juxtapose against the infinite backdrop.
Finite objects only juxtapose and move with respect to other finite objects.
All inertial frameworks are potential objects of perception.
Monad frameworks mean spaces between objects are defined as subsets of the frameworks.
Plenum or vacuum in finite space cannot be empirically determined due to regress of parts or pieces of matter (things broken into ever smaller pieces) in fact or as potential consideration.
In as much as the finite cannot be a part of any infinite existence (substance, nature), they must coexist. Their relationship in existence is not part to whole in the material sense, but rather in the overlapping sense. If the material mass of objects so coexists with infinite space, we can certainly sense that the fused space coexists with the substance of the object, and so can also coexist with infinite space. Again it cannot be a part of the infinite but must coexist with it by the very indivisible nature of the infinite.
We have a double sense of the English word ‘part’ in this case. We have the slices of a pie, and we have coexistent states of existence (finite space, time and matter; infinite space, eternity and mind.) This is not unusual. The term ‘everything’ can refer to just the things, perhaps not even including animals, and what is called living, or refer to the totality of existence (perhaps even God.)
The frame of reference for men is their own person, or their own imaginative perspective. For example, in a dream you may fly out of your body, yet see things from a certain perspective in that dream. Since our body is an object, the words and visions of our dreams distinct natures and views, we have lines of perspective, so to speak, outward from that viewpoint.
The mind is a problem:
We have the distinct body and objects of the world.
There is the indefinable world of infinity and states of being without definite limits or definition.
There is the infinite, infinite possibilities of eternal moments, omniscience, omnipotence.
The mind is between finite and infinite. There is no set limit to consciousness. The horizon may stop at the visual event line, yet the mind leaps beyond when so inclined. Indefinable terms such as beauty, justice, love are not quantifiable, only descriptive by vague terms that we assume our listener understands intuitively. This twilight zone area is harder to understand than the two extremes, and so blocks us from what understanding we can have of the two extremes. Epistemology is a greater problem than metaphysics or physics in philosophy.
Why do we say that finite objects cannot move against the infinite backdrop of infinite space? Motion has no meaning in infinity, is logically incoherent. Displacement is illogical as well by corollary to the same problem of finding points, magnitudes, duration or any transitive property in an infinite realm, that must by that nature also be eternal. Eternity is changeless, precluding transition.
Visit: http://www.Shakespir.com/books/view/738560 to purchase this book to continue reading. Show the author you appreciate their work!
A brief preface describes scope of essay and what Zenodoxes are. They contrast with Zeno's Paradoxes, the opposite of. Chapter 1 deals with absolutes of time, space and finite values. It explains why 'everything is relative' is bunk. It uses the identity of philosophy to show absolutes do and must exist. Materialism and Idealism are attacked as schemes of reality. Chapter 2 discusses how relative and absolute merge and diverge, using the money supply as a means of doing so. Chapter 3 refutes the modern notion that parallel lines do not exist (converging at infinity) and demonstrates that in fact curved lines only exist as polygonal finite increments of n-sides of straight lines. Chapter 4 discusses ordinal and cardinal numbers, why ordinals can be just infinite and cardinal numbers cannot, despite the general rule of one to one correspondence of ordinals to cardinal numbers.