James
I guess I have a propensity toward a more passive approach . . . when the time calls for it.
Since I have been here, I have had to take a good look at what I have to deal with - initially I was attacked - rationally speaking that directly points at emotional conduct in my eyes. That to me, runs against the grain of good philosophy. Before I arrived here I existed in a very logical world. A world far superior in rationality.
Constructive criticism in the before world could be easily discerned. In this “new” world it is difficult to determine what is constructive and what is trolling. The language I am used to follows words like, preposterous, nonsense, complete rubbish to name but a few examples - This new world its seems quite often follows words like, shit, fuck, asshole to name but a few examples. My before world should not be taken to mean the old world, however my tolerance for this “new” world has lessened quite rapidly for the time I have been here. To say that I am impressed with this “new” world, would be a disgusting overstatement.
I really appreciate that James. I get no enjoyment from offending people - especially those I respect so much. I feel that a good philosopher should take no offense. Good philosophy should have at its basis - fortified thinking, to put it simply.
- - ( – | <> | – ) - -
Notes on my methods: Some of the following information is usually kept in the background so as not to pollute the communication process. I do however feel it is necessary to share a few things here so that you have a clearer picture of how I operate. I get the feeling I might have introduced some confusion at some stage.
I did this entirely on purpose. I habitually approach problems a certain way - because I have found that the problem is usually the solution in reverse(poetic license).
You have the solution - it introduces to me a problem. So I break apart your solution into the smallest parts I can find. That way I can determine needed refinements in the information process - basically I hit the black box with a sledge hammer with the intention to reverse engineer the solution. Metaphorically speaking the parts are scattered everywhere and they become a puzzle to be put back together. I usually make the parts fit together better than before.
This works hand in hand with abstraction.
I call it a workup. It is a process whereby I separate and purify differential information so that I can analyze each derivative.
Chemists use a similar procedure.
After a successful workup, I move on to the next step. This next step I call compounding.
Compounding is a process whereby I amalgamate ‘each elemental unit(each derivative)’ into larger structural components. Compounding is done incrementally.
Slow and steady wins the race . . .
Step 1 ► Workup
Step 2 ► Compounding
From what I discern so far we have two separate compounds, metaspace and physical space. Each space is a compound space else it would be empty.
Empty space must be non-existent. Euclidean space is non existent until you add dimensions. Euclidean space is a compound of elemental dimensions.
To only add one element to empty space is as good as saying it is empty - for what could affect it and what could it affect?
Even the first dimension is a compound, constituted of two connected points - we call this a line.
The First Dimension is the LINE consisting of infinite points
Regarding: Now we can move a little faster. Yes we can - I suggest rather than a set speed - acceleration.
Let us sensibly build momentum within both of our set limits - lessening the confinement a step at a time.