1. A is separated through B where A not just projects to a further defintion — eodnhoj7

What, exactly, are you talking about here?

Volume is accelerated Mass as form.

Volume is accelerated Mass as form — eodnhoj7

?

A → (A,A)B observes A projecting past its origins as B. This progression from A to B observes A fundamentally separating itself as B.

B is a person? Re "A" what the heck are you talking about re "its origins" and re "projecting"?

Deleted

A is an axiom.

A as an axiom cannot exist on its own terms unless it exists through other axioms.

A must project to further axioms, as A on its own terms is effectively nothing/point 0/void.

All axioms, or self-evident truths, exist as the foundation for all phenomenon. They may be observed physical or abstract phenomenon that while observed form the observer so that the axiom is simultaneously an extension of the observer.

Axioms, observe all being as having an inherent element of consciousness in these regards as a perpetual measurement point of origin where reality is defined by the limits given to it, with these limits existing as the foundation for complex phenomena as limits in themselves.

The axiom existing through further axioms, with the axiom in itself being nothing/void/point 0 observes the axiom as not just rooted in consciousness but effectively the void of consciousness with consciousness stemming from a point 0 in these respects.

Consciousness is founded in point space, and this point space reflects through all being.

So A and B may be persons, where a person projects past their identity to form a new identity, a person projects past themselves through off spring, but it is not limited to persons but any form of movement.

From a different perspective, An atom must project past its localized position to another position in order to exist, however because the atom exist in a different position the atom is changed.

Or one can use "emotion", where anger is directed past its own origins into another emotion, such as joy which is the negation of anger by its dissolution. Anger dissolves into Joy, with both these emotions composed of further sub emotions (happiness, rage, jealousy, fear, contentement, whatever).

The directive nature of any axiom observes the axiom as effectively separating itself, through itself, into another axiom.

So A and B may be persons — eodnhoj7

What else might B be? You said that B observes. What other sort of things would you say make observations?

An axiom, such as A or B is "self-evident truth"

A self-evident truth:

1) Is both "subjective" (self) and "objective" (evidence as the cancelation of subjectivity).

2) References a loop, where the "truth" as evident to the self contains not just a nature of self-referentiality but consciousness as well. In these respects all truths, that which exists, has an inherent nature of consciousness.

3) All axioms, as conscious, existed composed of and composing not just further axioms but as extensions of eachother, observes all axioms as extended from a common source: ie "God".

You're saying that "self-evident truths" observe things?

[reply=

Axiom, A self-evident truth:

1) Is both "subjective" (self) and "objective" (evidence as the cancelation of subjectivity).

2) References a loop, where the "truth" as evident to the self contains not just a nature of self-referentiality but consciousness as well. In these respects all truths, that which exists, has an inherent nature of consciousness.

3) All axioms, as conscious, existed composed of and composing not just further axioms but as extensions of eachother, observes all axioms as extended from a common source: ie "God".

4) The axiom as composed of an composing all axioms is void in itself in the respect it is relative to other Axioms. In these respects, this observes the Axiom as nothing being equivalent to God as "Ending/Beginning" as a point of inversion conducive to nothingness. God is a 0d point.

5) The axiom as all axioms, where all axioms are extensions of eachother, observes all Axioms as 1 "everything", this is Equivalent to "God as Everything". God is pure being observed as a 1d point.

6) God as both Everything and Nothing, 1d/0d point space observes God as "Origin" as both "Cause" (pure structure through 1d point space) and "Acausal" (pure void as 0d point space). This point space, with the "point" rationally and intuitively being not just the foundation of axioms but the most axiomatic of all axioms for being "as is", is a definition of God and a foundation of consciousness within man as measurer.

7) God as Origin, is beyond Origin as Origin alone necessitates a dualism of both pure being and void, hence God is beyond point space an axioms. Beyond "Origin" is "definition" as the separation and connection of Origin, and "Power" as the maintainance and dissolution of "origin". The rational capacity for man to be original, define and exhibit power observes man, and consciousness, as a reflection or "mirroring of God synonymous to repetition or recursion" observes man as an extension of God.

8) All axioms, existing in accords to the other axioms which give origin, definition and power (maintainance), observes the axiom itself as a limit with all limits being the foundation of being.

9) The axiom as a limit, which is the foundation to all structure and order considering all being stems from structure and order through these foundational limits (with these foundational limits existing as limits in themselves) observes all axioms as proof through existence.

10) Existence is proof of God through the axiom.

 Top"Terrapin Station;226570"]

Holy crap, dude. You've got to be joking that you continually type that much when I ask you something yet you never even answer what I ask you. LOL. 90-something percent of the posts on this board are like you're in a loony bin.

There is nothing extant without form. — Terrapin Station

What is the form of space?

You have to be joking if you think that is a lot or even deep, or if you set the standard for sanity which is a debatable subject in itself. Thinking inside a box is a luxury, it is not owed to anyone.

The question is answered.

You asked about the nature of the axiom, as to whether it observes phenomon which lends to the nature of whether an axiom is conscious. More specifically if any phenomenon is in itself conscious.

If a phenomena is conscious, it must have some degree of self referentiality.

If all phenomena are conscious, as all phenomena are axiomatic (self referential and existing through the observer), then all phenomena stem from a center point of consciousness considering consciousness is the ever present cause.

This center point of consciousness stems through all phenomena, necessitating all axioms exist through eachother. The axiom, in turn, as a point of origin reflects the nature of God where all being is a reflection.

The thread is about the God debate, the premises must be observed.

The question could be asked, what is form?

Axiom, A self-evident truth — eodnhoj7

When is an axiom evident to others? And how does it relate to facts?
For example, 'women are inferior to men' has been a self-evident truth for many people for many years. Some still persist in that belief presently. However, we know it's not actually true.

1) Is both "subjective" (self) and "objective" (evidence as the cancelation of subjectivity). — eodnhoj7

If the objective cancels the subjective, how can an axiom be both? Perhaps you mean they're separate in our considerations...?

3) All axioms, as conscious, existed composed of and composing not just further axioms but as extensions of eachother, observes all axioms as extended from a common source: ie "God". — eodnhoj7

What do you mean by axioms are conscious and how do you come about it?

The question is answered. — eodnhoj7

No it wasnt. It would be answered by saying yes, no, or explaining why it's not possible to answer yes or no, where you literally write, "It's not possible to answer yes or no because . . ." at the start.

Again, in my view, space is the extension of matter and the extensional relations between matter, and it doesnt exist aside from that. So the form is the extensional descriptions in question.

Yes and No are relative to context of the definition, considering one may defined observation to means several different things relative to certain premises.

It may be defined as an act of reflection, with reflection being the replication of limits either actively (applying limits such as a line to a board), passively (observing the relations between animals or particles physical).

From a defintion where observation exists as a form of reflection, then yes all axioms observe.

Will address when have more time but in very simple terms, all axioms exist as limits which replicate to further limits, with this replication allow a form of symmetry to occur that maintains the axiom.

This replication of symmetry, as a reflective or mirroring process, is the foundation of all phenomenon, as well as consciousness (as necessitating a form self referentiality), therefore all axioms have som degree of awareeness. Consciousness exists through a replication of limits.

Thanks. I'll count that as an answer.

You're not talking about axioms as if they exist or can exist independently of people, are you?

By symmetry, do you mean rationale?

This replication of symmetry, as a reflective or mirroring process, is the foundation of all phenomenon — eodnhoj7

To me, 'This replication of symmetry, as a reflective or mirroring process', is a part of the perception of phenomena but not its foundation. There is a distinct difference between logic and axioms. Axioms are not necessarily logical because they are often tinged with the bias of personal interpretation but logic is distinctly the expression of the laws which govern phenomena thereby inherent in their foundation.

Also, I think axioms express a degree of consciousness or awareness because humans express consciousness in all their activities. An axiom would be nothing more beyond human expression or relation.

My apologies if I came off as rude or short earlier, and further apologies for a post which must become necessarily long. Keep in mind, you may want to read this post several times.

With that being said,

The question of an axiom existing independent of an observer, becomes problematic if we view all phenomenon as having a degree of consciousness as the nature of independent observer becomes void if all phenomena have some degree of awareness.

An axiom as self evident is dually subjective and objective. Subjectivity is formless void. Objectivivity is directed movement, or form and function, that exists as a limit conducive to structure.

A. Self referencing subjective nature which gives the phenomenon an objective nature.

All phenomena are composed of some symmetry, where some limit replicates, with this symmetry observing a common bond. An abstract example of this would be a geometric figure as replicated lines. This abstract nature further replicates within nature in the form of a tree or plant, composition of minerals, qualities of an animal (legs, eyes, hair, etc. as replicated qualities).

The replication of certain limits results into complex limits as qualities which replicate so on and so for until some structure occurs. This replication of limits observes structure as perpetual cause considering all cause is premised as order. An effect, is an approximation of a cause, is the replication of a cause through itself with any multiplicity being the mirroring of void causing a perceived variation. All effect contains an inherent element of randomeness to it.

However all effect, as cause through cause, in itself is a cause.

Replication gives foundation to a structure and acts as a self sustaining cause, hence cause is an inherent part of observation as the formation of limits. In these respects all phenomenon have some degree of self referential consciousness to it as an extension of the One Cause (God) which is ever present through creation.

All axioms are self referential due to this causal nature, as all being is connected through structure as cause.


B. A projective subjective nature that gives rise to an objective nature.

All phenomena are composed of and composes other phenomena, with the phenomena existing as a projected movement conducive to time. For example a cow is composed of atoms and composes other cows as a herd. The atoms in there projection through time form the cow, the cow as projecting through time composes a part of the herd. The herd in turn projects through time.

It is the nature of the axiom to project through time, as a time zone in itself, that the axiom must have somewhere to project. The axiom can only project if there is somewhere to project to, neceesstating a further axiom. All axioms exist as relative parts, with this relativity observing a form of multiplicity. Each axiom as an individual part acts as a point of inversion, void in itself, in the respect it can only exist through other axioms.

In these respects the axiom as an individual or, through its void nature, multiplies and divides simulteously. For example a cow individuates (multiplies/divides) itself into further cows through the act of reproduction. It also individuate itself into further particles at death.

The axiom, cow in this example, is a localization of change. As localized directed movement it is an actual locality. In these respects it is objective. However, as an actual locality it must project to another actual locality. Considering there is only existence and order, the projection of one actual locality to another necessitates one locality to take on the form of a potential locality. As potential it is formless in the respect it does not exist in its actualized state.

This may appear confusing, a localized phenomena not being a localized phenomena. It is potential in the respect it is not the embodied form which is about to take place. Take for example the cow again. It's potential state is one of particles (death and decomposition/eaten), it's actual state is the cow. The actual state of the cow must project to another actual state of of being sick then an actual state of being sick.

Each state of the cow is a localization of the cow in a state of time where, due to time, the cow exists as multiple entities or parts. Now the potential state of particles is formless in time, relative to the other localizations of the cow. This potential formless nature is the means through which the actual localized axioms exist, with the potential state being a localized state when observed from a macro localized state. It acts as the formless means through which the actual states invert to other states that exist relative to eachother. The cow actualizes its potential nature (giving the formless nature form) through further actual states. The boundary line between the transition of the actual state into the potential state being actualized when localized appears as a further continuum of actual/potential localites.

Now the localized state as objective, form and function, observes the potential state is subjective. This makes little sense to most. While the potential is relative formlessness, and the subject is formless, how can potentiality be subjective? What we understand of the subjective state is a state of being that is inherently without form through language, thought, whatever in regards to the individual state. The subjective state as potential localization is potential objectivity. One may have a subjective experience and give objective form to it through word, etc. So going back to the cow being potential particles, necessitates the cow as not being a cow is subjective in the respect it is a formless state of the cow. Death, or void, can be viewed as subjective considering objectively a transition of movements occurs.

Potentiality as that without form can be observe as a relative absence of consciousness, death, and the term "reaching ones potential" can be observe as actualizing all that can be actualized before death, as inversion of one degree of consciousness to another (higher or lower) occurs.

In these respects, where the axiom as a locality exists through inversion it is a causal for inversion from one state to another is fundamentally void of being as this inversion of states is an inversion between unity/multiplicity.


C. All axioms are synthetic as the joining of the subjective formless (acausal randomness/potentiality) and objective form and function (causal structure/locality).

All axioms exists as directed movement, woth this directed movement being progressive and self referential. As directed movement they exist as limits. Movement occurs only if it is directed and direction occurs only if there is movement.

This limit exists through no limit as possible limit. A limit may exist if and only if it is possible, all possibilities are that which do not exist, however what is possible occurs through the limits.

This point observes an inherent cycling where possibility and limit occuring through a continual joining that is circular. All phenomena as existing through cycles are maintained for what they are by a process of joining. The birth and death of the cow, are joined as the cow existing as a cycle. Synthesis acts as a means of maintainance. This nature of synthesis is consciousness as it is a form of measurement where A dualism is joined into a unified state observed as triadic in its totality.

I will end it here because the post is way to long.

Long story short, all axioms are conscious because of a synthesis of a causal and causal nature which reflects the nature of God as Universal consciousness.

See the way to long post above.

I find your perspective unique and somewhat interesting, however, it seems deficient in several ways:

1. I think you're creating your own abstract meanings and explanations of certain terms e.g. axiom, subjective/subjectivity, objective/objectivity, time, cause, effect, form, etc without recourse to how they relate to the already accepted meanings. In short, everything you're explaining is self-evident to you alone.

2. I think you're not explaining any principles or laws which govern phenomena. You're just giving the same basic explanations that we know about phenomena using complex wording. We know things are composed of parts or that complex configurations are composed of simpler configurations; we know time is a factor in all relationships, circumstances or conditions; we know subjectivity is a perspective towards bias/limit while objectivity is towards comprehensiveness/integration (which, by the way, there's a lot of deviation and conflation of the meanings you give throughout your brief).

3. I think you've misconstrued what perspective means and have gotten entangled in a paradox of your own making. There cannot be a formless form. Such descriptions may be used in various instances but without the right relation it becomes a false explanation. For example, Schrodinger's cat which may be dead and/or alive - first, it is a thought experiment and, in reality, we can only observe either of the two states not both. Your explanations seem to have ignored the context given by perspective. It is not coherent because you mix mash between the observer, observed and observing. You need an appropriate sequence.

4. I think you're trying to delineate the progression from unity to multiplicity and back to unity while, simultaneously, highlighting the relations of duality and triplicity but it all seems cooked up. You have the beginning and the end but there's no logical progression in between them. There needs to be a how and why certain activities and conditions become or act as the what and where in the when.
If you're going to attempt to explain consciousness or activities related to it, then the why is just as fundamental as the how. Otherwise, it is just an alternate commentary on what we already know. And, if the point is to give an alternate commentary, then your mode should relate to ours or, at least, match the basic language of the field of knowledge it belongs to or, better yet, what is universally accepted. Think of it as a translation from your own understanding to ours.

Hope you can make it clearer to understand.

@brianw you are speaking for yourself.

The concept of God comes to us from Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Leibnitz, and is also mentioned by our modern contemporary Roger Scruton who lives in England.

You have skipped all these august philosophers in jumping to your own conclusions.

Plus, what if God knocked on your front door and introduced himself to you? What then? Then all your assumptions about God would fly out the window.

You are affirming the consequent with your own assumptions by arguing from simple ignorance. Bad philosophy.

You do not know God. That much is readily apparent. It may be the end to YOUR OWN argument. But do not presume to speak for anyone else.

A good atheist would mention all the terrible things that have happened in history and blame God. This is what Bertrand Russell did.

A good deist would simply point out that after creating us, God has simply left us on our own. Scruton has said that God is too busy to bother with us. I tend to agree with Scruton. Not with you.

You have skipped all these august philosophers in jumping to your own conclusions. — hks

What conclusions?

The question of an axiom existing independent of an observer, becomes problematic — eodnhoj7

But I was just asking you how you were thinking about it.

1. All definitions are defined according to the frameworks built around them. "Time" may have one meaning in a x philosophy with there being many philosophies around time. In physics there is no common defintion to time, as some do not believe it exists.

In simpler terms, time has multiple meanings that are not agreed upon and as such is subject to the fallacy of equivocation. As time is equivalent to a variety of definitions, these definitions are determined by the frameworks in which they exist. Time is the relation of parts, acting as a point of inversion in a structure between unity and multiplicity as a form of entropy.

2. An axiom as a self evident truth, which is the dictionary defintion, leads to the question of "what is self evident truth?" In giving answer to the question we are left with breaking it down, at minimum to a subjective state connected with self, and objective state connected with evidence. The axiom exists as both subjectivity and objectivity. Then looking at the nature of subjectivity and objectivity the question occurs as to what there nature is or is not.

Considering a subjective experience is effectively formless in the respect it cannot be viewed by others, or given clear description thrpugh the self, subjectivity is formlessness. The objective, that which is defined and observed by multiple people acts as a common median across subjective states considering many people can observe it. The objective acts a a form and function, or limit, in the respect it brings and maintains a form of unity inseparable from the act of it being structured.

Now the subjective, as formlessness or "no limit", and the objective as limit observes inversely that all phenomena composed of definitive limits and formless no limits (example the rock may have a jagged edge that defines it, but what composes this jagged edge is formless) have a subjective and objective nature.

3. A formless form is a unlimited limit, or a limit which exists through a continuum. A line or circle qualifies as such, as well as the number 1. Qualities such as colors are composed of infinite colors with an individual color merely being a boundary through which further colors exist.

4. One progressing to two is a logical observation of unity inverting to multiplicity. 2 existing as 1 number is a logical progression from multiplicity to unity. A cell individuating into another cell is a other example. 1 cell inverts to two cells as many cells with each cell being a unit in itself.

The inversion from a unified state into a multiple state observes a dualism through opposition (opposites) where inversion itself is void of any defintion because it is nothingness or has no structure.

This opposition, is solved through a form of synthesis, as joining. Where 1 moves to many and moves back to one again. 1 has a synthetic nature of continually moving.

4. Shrodingers cat as both living and dead can be solved by observing the cat as "dying" where both states are observed as one continuum. If the cat is alive, but cells are dying is the cat dead? If the cat is dead, but certain cells keep replicating (such as toenails) is it alive? Shrodingers cat can be solved by a continuum.

The example shows a problem in the principle of identity, and the framework of classical logic being contradictory.

5. A progression is a localization of other progressions and strictly observes the directive qualities of one phenomena to another. In these respects, a logical argument as proof is merely a structure where proof and structure are inseparable. Intuitionist logic observes this in part where proof is merely a creation. The nature of unity and multiplicity, unity and dualism observes a synthetic property thrpugh the triad as one in itself.

Take for example a man and woman, a dualism. They are unified through the function of sex and form of the child resulting. The man, woman and child are individual entities in there own right, while being connected through eachother as 1 family.

Synthesis is continuity with continuity allowing for unity, hence order.

6. The nature of axiom is acausal cause as sythesis where what we observe in all phenomena is:

1) constant structure

2) changing parts.

3. Sythesis as continuity

With these three axioms existing through all phenomena as a foundation for consciousness. These three foundations exist through eachother as eachother. They exist as foundations of measurement as well, with all consciousness being defined in accords to a process of measurement. All phenomena as conscious observes all phenomena as self measuring.

7. Universally accepted for what field exactly? Philosophy? Which school? Science? Which field? Math? Which field? Religion? Which One? Biology? Which field?

What is this "common language" everyone agrees to? English? Which dictionary? What year?

All these perspective invert to further perspective and there is no perspective which will be able to maintain itself without either branching to another one or some argument as to which perspective is best.

In a same respect these multiple perspectives must stem from one source of thinking, due to ther divergent natures necessiating a common bond at some point, so the question is one of where these commonalities occur.

Many schools dependent upon one source requires a form of synthesis.

The only question is one of universal principles with these universal principles being definitions of God.


To define cause is cause.
To define acausality is without cause.
To define synthesis is sythesis.

These principles must be able to maintains themselves as constants, progress in defintion and continually join these new definitions into one in order to maintain them and progress further.

If an axiom is self aware, to some degree, does it need an independent observer to exist?

If one axiom observes another what determines the relativistic degree of defintion where one forms the other? The degree of self referentiality.