Total Posts:7Showing Posts:17
The Theory of Opposites
Posts: 2
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
4/13/2013 4:30:54 PM Posted: 7 years ago I have the pleasure to join this forum, and really, I spent a great time developing a philosophical theory called: "The Theory of Opposites " The Mathematical Principles of the Philosophy of Nature", and I am looking for all kinds of help and support to evaluate and popularize this theory, so, I"ll be grateful for everybody for any advice in that respect. The details of this theory can be found on my blog:
http://universaltheory.blogspot.com... and I hope it to be interesting for everyone interested in philosophy. And hope the permission for this external link which is just a book. Hoping for any advice and evaluation of this work; and feel free to copy passages of the original material to discuss it here. Enjoy new thought!! 
Anonymous

4/13/2013 5:03:28 PM Posted: 7 years ago Summary?

Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
4/13/2013 5:49:54 PM Posted: 7 years ago Is this one of those "unifying theories" that use phrases that are scientific crap such as "4D quantum ray timeless photons?"
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above that's the task, that's the toil." 
Posts: 52
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
4/13/2013 6:40:13 PM Posted: 7 years ago I don't have time right now to read all four chapters however I will comment on the first few sections of chapter one.
First off: You need a thesis. The first paragraph of your entire work should read 'The theory of opposites proposes...' or 'The theory of opposites states...' If you don't tell us immediately what this book is about, we're going to have a very hard time following the ideas you present in the rest of your book. Second off: You need a better translation. I can see that the English translation didn't go well, just by reading the first few paragraphs. Some sentences are nonsensical and hard to understand. The known mathematical sign rules includes both positive and negative signs, so why it does not include a neutral one? And what the meaning of these rules and their usage? There is no neutral sign because mathematics doesn't require it. The usage of the rules should be obvious: we use positive numbers to count, label, and measure, just as we use negative numbers to count, label, and measure. Do you not understand how mathematics works or how it is applied? Since zero has no physical meaning, and there must be another language to express about that. Zero has no physical meaning? What? Of course it does it represents the absence of something. Why do we need an entire language to express this concept? The mathematical rule: " x  = + does not have an inverse form which should be: +x+= to achieve order and symmetry. This just flat out doesn't make sense. Are you saying that the product of two positive numbers should be negative? From these simple notices; the concept of "state" appears as a common factor between them, which was a motive to investigate in this direction. You need to define what you mean by 'state.' succeeded up till now to discover it or even asserted on the right approach to establish a mental theory to dismantles and unify all the human knowledge What makes you think there is a unifying theory at all? Moreover, it deduces the relationship between three states (+,  , ") and explains their meanings " is not a state. It describes two possible states: positive and negative. I could go on. But hopefully this will help for now. 
Posts: 2
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
4/14/2013 10:44:09 AM Posted: 7 years ago What I'm saying is very simple and pure logic, no complicated mathematics or complications of any kind, so that results are straight forward and clear for everybody regardless of his scientific background.
Zero is an abstract numerical concept, not a realistic concept. Despite there no universal agreement to include zero in the set of natural numbers, but I opt to consider it not included, because it is not natural, but it is an invented abstract concept for counting system, so it is right to say it has no physical meaning (epistemological viewpoint and ontological viewpoint). You said: "Do you not understand how mathematics works or how it is applied?". And I say to you: do you think that the known sign rules are the only possible relations between a certain set of signs (whatever its meaning) which is the subject of this theory. One of two: I'm a na"ve person or it is a scientific breakthrough. Is it really impossible to find the square root of minus? Just ask yourself. You can read the book to know the answer. The situation here is like the Euclidean geometry and discovering nonEuclidean geometries and the logical consequences based on that, and the issues of applicability of any set of axioms on reality. Do not you think I have neglected defining what a state is? Just go through the book before attacking. Concerning the translation, I agree with you it may be not so good, and I'll be grateful for any advice in that respect or any corrections. Whatever it is, thank you for your comments 
Posts: 52
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
4/14/2013 1:50:47 PM Posted: 7 years ago Zero is an abstract numerical concept, not a realistic concept. It's both. Realistically, we can have an absence of something. For example, in the real world, I do not have any oranges in my room. I'm not sure why you think we can't apply the concept of zero to real life. Despite there no universal agreement to include zero in the set of natural numbers, but I opt to consider it not included, because it is not natural, but it is an invented abstract concept for counting system, so it is right to say it has no physical meaning (epistemological viewpoint and ontological viewpoint). Just because Zero represents the absence of something doesn't mean we can't apply that concept to the real world. Just because there is 'zero' of something doesn't mean the concept of zero is exclusive to physics or mathematics. You said: "Do you not understand how mathematics works or how it is applied?". And I say to you: do you think that the known sign rules are the only possible relations between a certain set of signs (whatever its meaning) which is the subject of this theory. One of two: I'm a na"ve person or it is a scientific breakthrough. Well no, we don't know that for sure. There could in fact be some neutral sign. But you would have to first prove it to determine whether or not it actually exists before you start using it in any proofs. Is it really impossible to find the square root of minus? Just ask yourself. You can read the book to know the answer. It isn't impossible, strictly speaking. It depends on how you define impossible. We can still represent the square root of negatives as bi, where b is a real number and i is an imaginary number that satisfies the property i*i = 1. Do not you think I have neglected defining what a state is? Just go through the book before attacking. That's not the problem. When you introduce a concept in the book, the first thing you should always do is define it clearly. It's hard to follow any text where you introduce a term and then proceed to define it several paragraphs (or chapters) later. Even providing just a basic summary of the definition will help the reader tremendously. 
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
4/14/2013 7:27:39 PM Posted: 7 years ago At 4/14/2013 10:44:09 AM, Mamdouhmofid wrote: Wrong dichotomy. It's either a scientific breakthrough, or you're a retard. I'm leaning towards the latter. "Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above that's the task, that's the toil." 