| form vs. potential -
01-16-2007, 05:07 PM
In the Aristotelean sense, form as structure or design is knowable. On the other hand, potentiality is not. Aristotle called absolute potentiality pure matter and absolute knowledge pure form. Although pure matter is not comprehensible, pure form as a mathematical structure is relatively understandable depending on underlying assumptions and definitions with empirically verifiable consistencies. The important aspect of all mathematical structures is their defined dimensionality. In this sense, dimensionless quantities supposedly become the simplest to understand. Next, would be 1-dimension, 2-dimension, 3-dimension, 4-dimension, and so on and so forth in the order pf progressive complexity. For matrices, their dimensionality is indirectly determined by the number of elements. A single element is a scalar. 2-element is a spinor. 3-element is a vector. 4-element is a tensor. The magnitude of each element becomes a component of an embedding structure. The magnitude of the dimension of a scalar is zero, for a spinor is 1, for a vector is 2, and for a tensor is 3. However, the dimensionality of matrices with more than four elements becomes more complicated. Fortunately, study of symmetry using group theory allows groupings of elements whose magnitudes of group dimension do not exceed 3. According to Aristotle pure form is eternal and unchanging, the prime immover. Relative forms, on the other hand, change according to four Aristotelean causes: material, efficient, formal, and final. This final cause is then equivalent to quantized space composed of fundamental wave forms that are all out of phase with zero value for group and phase velocity. Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c² |