the nature of a point requires a 3

The very nature of a point itself is where philosophers and physicists alike get all wonky and woozy. Yet it is akin to “How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?” For measure, you need points. For points, you need order. For order, you need measure and for measure you need order. They’re conceptual requirements without which one can fly off into la-la-land like trying to find a fundamental fraction representing the square root of 2. It’s not that a paradox lies at the heart of all things but rather that the nature of the things appear to have a minimum of 3. You do not have a > you have a>b. Even if you bring the subjective into the equation, you have observer, observed and the act of observation. An equation.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eight − 2 =

Leave a Reply