Philosophy ofl Mathamatics--metaphysical

Philosophy
1

Objectivity is a semantic/concept of philosophy, science, physics and math;
Mass/Matter as an object is one dimensional; Space as an object is one dimensional;
Time as an object is one dimensional, Transformation as an object is one dimensional,
Observation as an object is one dimensional–
Relating their Interactions to Existence actualizes our Being Here
Are these interactions a path to fourth dimensional Being?

2

3

Well put, Darron.
Occam

4

ignored by CFI
Try asking me questions about what you want to understand,
From the knowledge that every second is new in our lives?

5

I would start by asking what, exactly, you are trying to say. Your post makes no sense. Ontology is the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. How is that the result of three dimensions?

6

ignored by CFI
Have you any thoughts about what Being is?

7

While Darron said it more succinctly and dramatically than I shall, I believe your posts are nonsense.
Occam

8
While Darron said it more succinctly and dramatically than I shall, I believe your posts are nonsense. Occam
Especially since he reworded his original post to change the meaning. He is not only spouting nonsense, he is dishonest. Edit: changed "wording" to "meaning" to eliminate redundancy and clarify what I was thinking.
9
Objectivity is a result of three dimensions (one and two dimensions are fractional) Observation as an object is one dimensional, Nature as an object is one dimensional, Time as an object is one dimensional, Combined, our Life has become their result. Is this combination a path to fourth dimensional being?
Fifty words used to say nothing.
10

we don`t live in one or two dimensional worlds
you need ingredients for three dimensions
I have referenced, nature–observation–time
as a–modern–foundation of philosophy

11

So what!!!
Occam

12
we don`t live in one or two dimensional worlds you need ingredients for three dimensions I have referenced, nature—observation—time as a—modern—foundation of philosophy
Twenty seven words to say nothing. At least you're keeping it brief.
13
So what!!! Occam
Isn't that a Miles Davis tune?
14

arnoldg, we really do require members here to engage rationally by posting things that can be at least understood at some basic level, and by reacting to questions with an apparent attempt at clarity and rational development. Otherwise posting ends up simply wasting everyone’s time. I think if these topics interest you, you should try to get straight about what you are trying to say, and engage critically with questioning. Otherwise your posts here fall afoul of Rule 3(h)], in that there is no meaningful development or responsive discussion. Thanks for the understanding.

15

Doug (CFI), thank you for letting me openly question if Observation interacts with—
Matter, Space,Time and Transformation as equal objects in the Cosmos Universe.
Can some philosophers use maths` practice (through) syntactic and semantic predicates,
as descriptive words for pursuing the love of wisdom and truth?

16
Doug (CFI), thank you for letting me openly question if Observation and Nature are equal interacting objects in the Cosmos/Universe
That's not what he did, arnoldg. Suggest you read what he actually wrote.
17
Doug (CFI), thank you for letting me openly question if Observation and Nature are equal interacting objects in the Cosmos/Universe
That's not what he did, arnoldg. Suggest you read what he actually wrote.
@Arnoldg, moreover, that is not what you did in you OP. Then also, Nature is an object, Observation is an activity (not an object). The act of observation collapses a probability wave and reveals the object. This is an example of cause/effect, not of equivalence.
18

I was summarizing, but you seem to have created a question for philosophy;
In order for a probability to exist it has to be seen,
In order for something to be seen there has to be observation;
Ordinary observation refers to descriptions by and for ourselves—
Such as ourselves as an effect of physical and observational interactions.
Then observation could become an equivalent of a predicate for a postulate to
Axiomatic and theoretical probabilities from knowledge—
as well equal in the probable effects of interactions with nature time space—
.

19
In order for probability to exist it has to be seen, in order for something to be seen there has to observation, when does the cosmos/universe exist without observation?
For several billion years after the Big Bang there weren't enough heavy elements for multicelluar life to exist. It took a few good rounds of supernova explosions to create those elements. Then sentient life had to evolve to do the observing. Observation creates nothing tangible. Think it through more deeply. You are showing a very ethnocentric attitude toward the universe. The universe had to exist long before any life forms that could observe it arose.
20
In order for a probability to exist it has to be seen,
No, it doesn't. The gist of what you appear to be claiming is that reality and existance depends on whether or not we humans observe it. It doesn't. Reality doesn't give a flip if we observe it or not.