Another question Ive always struggled with is what is the value of circular reasoning..it isnt provable it has no value and it is perfectly possible it will lead you to the truth, but it is unlikely that it will lead you to the truth...but does it lead you to the truth purely by chance or does it do this on rare occasion because of some value of the method? when using circular reason you are at least looking for consistency...but its like your not within the circle of reasoning so you cant add up the various sensible structures it forms in more iinear reasoning...it might be that reasoning becomes circular when no contextual contradiction makes it a dangerous epistamological method...depending on what reason itself is, and what it has to do with perspective and context, circular reasoning might at some point be without particularity and contrasted individuality such that it can be wrong...such that the object reasoned about could possibly lead you astray...you start with the assumption of the conclusion if the conclusion is no different than a complete absence of assumptions..in such cases starting with the conclusion is no different than starting with no assumptions...but what contitutes an absence of assumptions...it might be that after all the cancellation, exclusion and inclusion of reasoning there are any number of constituent elements to a conclusion of no assumptions...which might be why circular reason can be right to begin with...it shares certain elements with good reasoning...so if i take that as a possibility what would it say about reason...what theory of mapping might it suggest...what is logic in a modular morph generating model...is logic an expression of some more general physical recurring morphic variation, or it is perhaps a culmination of some more general morphic variation..conflict resolution and separation of conflicting forces into separate spaces..is zero assumption potentially endoconflicted, conflicted purely within itself, such that it would need to distribute canceling elements into separate spaces...how can reasoning be explained in geometric terms...how is it potentially related to preeuclidean perceptual spaces...if other planets dont have life, because their numerical value is to low, and harmonic structure increases in complexity with numerical value..that an earth is the equivalent of a black hole further away...then the noneuclidean spaces without extension would show up here and only here...perceptual spaces would show up outside of animals unless the animals contain the future...and constituent elements change with distance.. I forget why now but it didnt add up that space could contain life in other planets...one idea I notice is that centricity and multiple centers is mainly problematic if there is no change in constituent elements as you move away from the earth..the existence of other stars is part of the argument for the heliocentric model and I am looking for a lunarcentric model...with multiple centers and multiple antecedence..where other stars, moons and planets can be the antecedent centers, factoring in the changing contituent elements...but I cant remember the original reason life on other planets didnt make sense in my idea..i think it was partly because such a misconception doesnt allow for endospanse...endospanse requires that area not expand and that with expansion there has to be compensation...so whatever my observation was at least i have the idea that compensation involves changing contituent elements with expansion..the difference in nothingness, the main change going on in it is that is can be said to be constituted of any number sets of constituent elements...if these levels express differently or effect each other...as show by a series of topographical embeddings relating each level inductively...different rates of deepening and fractional would express the elements differrently, and the lenses create different rates of deepening and fractional expansion...with symmetries...analysing the innards of nothingness looking for an inductive argument...you need ultimately a special lens form...some culminating lens form where nothingness and the changes between the symmetrical rates of deepening and expansion change in such a way that you reach nothingness again...and to show that nothingness recurs in the series, but the final lens would have something more thorough, more complete, relating to the shortest length and what is a substantial length...at some point when any length no matter how long is insubstantial relative to the inertial uniform pressure, where no longer lengths can exist without exoaligning...perhaps that is some completion state of nothingness at the maximum totality of constituent elements..and perhaps each state in between the states that are equivalent to nothingness also are equivalent to nothingness with some regular naturally recurring geometric factor...such that every state along the fractional expansion and deepening is nothingness by one of two definitions...perfect boundedness or perfect unboundedness, relative to the constituent elements in question...related perhaps to the cycling whole dimensions and the recurring forms or symmetries in fractional increase...
Posted on: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 03:34:02 +0000