Opposite?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

The opposite of apple is no apple

The opposite of apple can also be apples, because the singularity of the former and plurality of the latter are opposite. The opposite of apple can also be everything, because the specificity of the former and the generality of the latter are opposites.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Aedes

The opposite of apple can also be apples, because the singularity of the former and plurality of the latter are opposite. The opposite of apple can also be everything, because the specificity of the former and the generality of the latter are opposites.

Aedes,

Does that not go back to the is, is not formulation? This is plurality, this is not plurality, it is only opposite in the quantitative sense, not the qualitative sense. In order for there to be a true sense of the opposite must it satisfy both the quantitative and the qualitative senses??

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by boagie

Aedes,

Does that not go back to the is, is not formulation?

So does apple versus no apple, of course. Unlike an implicit "is of predication", as in the case of quantity, the case of apple vs no apple contains an implicit "is (and is not) of existence".

By the way, the opposite of apple can also be elppa.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Aedes

By the way, the opposite of apple can also be elppa.

Good point. And it adds on to perception theory. You can find an opposite to anything when perceived in a certain way, but when perceiving something in a certain way aren't you breaking it into parts, concrete or not seems irrelevant. Elppa is focusing on the entirety of the word, so that is a change of perception from the physical entity of the apple to the context's entity.
And elppa is not really a true opposite because it is conveying the opposite of a manmade way of portraying the entirety of the apple, but not it's own natural sense.

Therefore, what is the true opposite of the number 3.141592653... . Or is it simply not having that number in existence. Any number that is rational? But thats deviating from sungularity.

[Holiday20310401]

Since we've agreed that there is an opposite to anything I have another question that should relate. Is there always two sides to an equation? Will something always = something else? Two sides to an equation seems rather two dimensional. I was reading an article about how new math is becoming scarce. I really have no knowing of whether this is true but it's not like I'm learning anything 'real' in highschool math. Perhaps there is a concept of 3D math? Then again, that seems to defy the digital universe and the perception theory.
By the way I only have a vague sense of what the perception theory is, and I keep hearing that statement, what is it actually?
Any thoughts?

[boagie]

Holiday,

When you are speaking of perception inferring that from the perception of the whole there are no opposites. It might be good to remember that that particular perception is not available to humanity, there is not one instance of the perception of a totality, the reality of living in an open system.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by boagie

Holiday,

When you are speaking of perception inferring that from the perception of the whole there are no opposites. It might be good to remember that that particular perception is not available to humanity, there is not one instance of the perception of a totality, the reality of living in an open system.

Therefore, the only reason why we live in a 3D spatial universe is because there are infinite opposites to infinite opposites. Opposite to opposite is like a line. (Yes I know that time is considered a dimension, and it probably fits somewhere.)
It kind of sounds like I'm advocating string theory but string theory is trying to support the cause for many dimensions.
Also, if you are saying that we are just absent of that particular perception it could just be in front of our eyes, but unable to contrive it.
Whenever I start thinking of perception and opposites and try to change the perspective I view every link as a line and changing the perception as a different direction for the line, creating a honeycomb of 3D cubes. But the Lines are never interfering with each other. Never are there lines inside the 3D cubes. But when dealing with perception, the only way I see it possible is having the lines filling the entire space of the cube or none of it, because there would have to be infinite lines.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

You mean entireties do not have opposites?

I am unsure of the meaning of an 'entirety'.

The opposite of apple is no apple, not being a part of what can be real or perceived even.

Nah.. apples don't have 'opposites'.
Your perception/conception of (the qualities and patterns that you interpret as) an 'apple', does.
Every Perspective (that matrix wherein the 'apple' has it's existence) has equal and opposite Perspectives. "This apple is sweet (from 'this' perspective)." "This apple is sour/bitter to me..." No 'incorrect', though opposite Perspectives. An 'apple' is an image (in a perspective) of the totality of the applic-able qualities. It is the individual perspective that is on a continuum. That is what a Perspective is; one limited 'view'. Every perspective's 'opposite' is implied by definition.

[GoshisDead]

1) not everything has a polar opposite as that requires a cline between both poles, hot --------> cold at some point hot turns to cold. So if opposites in this thread are being defined as polar then yes there are things without opposites, there are no polar ends to a noun, clitic, inflectional suffix etc...

2) singular opposite, anything with a singular defenition has an opposite in this sense, because anything that is not that thing is the opposite of that thing by virtue of not being that thing. So if opposites are being defines as something that is Non-X, then everything has an opposite.