What is "miraculous"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What then is fundamental in your model?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Just what I gave in the last post. Mass means nothing to me in terms of geometry. It's just a word we mutually agree upon to denote some aspect of reality that we have identified. To identify is not to explain. To explain, phenomena must be reduced to geometry because we are visual creatures. Perhaps if we could only smell things we might want a different focus of reduction ;o)

========================

The "point" is the embodiment of the concept of identity (which is common to all things). Hence, it is not trivial but is rather the most general geometric form of all.

Note that I distinguish two different families of points ... those which can be placed in a one to one correspondence with the "finite numbers" (which compose particles) and those which can only be placed in a one to one correspondence with the "infinite" numbers (which compose space). I define finite numbers as those which have a finite number of digits with a beginning and end to the string ... while infinite numbers are those which have an infinite number of digits without a beginning or end.

Since (by Cantor's diagonal proof) the spatial set is infinitely larger than the particle set, there is "room" between particles in which they can move around ... and ... because there are no "scales" as in Tom's model, they serve to compose spherical fields around each unit particle which denote distance and direction from other particles in 3-space. The field around a particle is the geometric embodiment of an abstraction ... a set of numbers so to speak ... it 'stretches' because information cannot travel at infinite velocity. Hence, when a particle moves, its field is "left behind" until that location in the field is notified that its center has moved ... then it moves and continues to move after the central particle has stopped until notified to stop.

You probably don't understand what I am talking about and I won't explain it much further since this isn't my forum ;o)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The "point" is the embodiment of the concept of identity (which is common to all things). Hence, it is not trivial but is rather the most general geometric form of all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
My point was that a point has no form, and thusly has no relation with geometry. I.E They have zero dimensions and are not a geometric. Geometry serves to explain an infinty of points, but not a single point. Any geometric form regardless of size will have an infinity of points. One could say an infinity of points is the embodiment of the concept of identity, but not the point. Essentially a single point cannot show itself on any radar to claim Existence.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My point was that a point has no form, and thusly has no relation with geometry<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A point embodies the concept of "identity" and nothing else by itself. Where there are two non-congruent points, it denotes also the concept of "position", i.e. with two points you get point and not-point which forces out at least a line segment.

You're thinking in terms of "stuffness". That's not all that geometry is. It is also about the relationships between geometric objects and the logic of same. Geometry presupposes logic of which it is a part. So, you are just splitting semantic hairs. I stopped splitting hairs long ago when I noticed that the universe itself ... is not confused at all ... by our definitional disfunctionality. ;o)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So, you are just splitting semantic hairs. I stopped splitting hairs long ago when I noticed that the universe itself ... is not confused at all ... by our definitional disfunctionality. ;o)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
It is for this reason we split hairs. If a dictionary were perfect - We would have no need for an understanding of the universe.

A suggestion - An EBTX dictionary

Because I'm not sure anymore what you mean by the word STUFF, now that a point embodies the concept of identity, and a point is also not? Lemmy take a stab at stuff - Stuff is 3D. It is the gathering of points, where the point is anything but 3D, in a collection of not so pointy points?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Where there are two non-congruent points<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Is this to say - A point with identity verses a point without? Logic verses illogic?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is this to say - A point with identity verses a point without? Logic verses illogic?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No, a point in the same position as another is the same point ;o)

What I mean by "stuff" is your emotional relationship with matter. What you can touch is "real". What you can't touch seems not to be real. But reality is made from no independent stuff. Matter is the embodiment of abstract principles which are logically prior to matter.

First you have abstract logical principles.
For a principle to be true, it must be validated by means of "existing in some form" which embodies the principle.

These principles are then embodied in a form (matter).

Then, you percieve the matter and feel it is "stuff" because you are also an artifact of the principles which is given "form" (i.e. your consciousness). "Stuffness" is not a primary. The principles are ... then comes matter ... then your perception of "stuff".