# Magnitude and Form

while one can appreciate magnitude without motion, one cannot apprehend form without motion particularly rotational motion. Extension is a motion. Intension is a motion.

Now i have expanded the notion of magnitude to its full notion: extension in space intensity in proprioception. This translates to intensity of "…" in spatial volume.

Thus a clear link to motion is involved in magnitude through extension and intension.

To what should i generalise motion? The notion of change of intensity seems the logical choice. Motion in space is then represented by change in intensity in space. If the change is sudden then a boundary experience ensues. If that boundary moves relative to a specified spatial volume, then the notion of spatial relative motion ensues.

Do i subscribe to a container notion of space? No. I express a elastic intensity notion of space, a plasticity of space which condenses and "evaporates" that is rarefies. This is not a smooth plasticity, and it is clumped around poles in a multipolar distribution.

The question is: does space in the form of an object move through space in the form of an expanse, or does spatial intensity move through space in the form of a change in intensity, a variation of the spatial intensity per unit volume?

To make the question clear i rephrase it as does motion of space occur as discrete objects of space moving through a different kind of space, or does motion occur as a a variation in intensity in a volume voxel of space. rather as a "picture" moves on the surface of a screen?

The one requires a receptacle of space theory with many different types of space, the other require a substance capable of infinite intensity variation, but no especial motion component.

The introduction of an Aether concept is of no practical help, however the fractal geometry notion enables a specific volume of space to have intensive attributed properties of infinite depth, and extensive properties of infinite scale, making such an additional notion unnecessary.

The answer to the question is a subjective choice of acceptance, but the distinction lies at the heart of the duality in modern thinking in Physics: the wave particle duality.

From the earliest thinking about space matter and spirit were divorced from each other.Thus light held a special intermediary role between the material and the immaterial. However when light was shown to travel in streaight poles with the centre bored out, it was assumed light travelled in straight lines like a particle fired out of a "gun". The particle theory was expounded to full effect and seemingly verified by experimentation. But this was unsatisfactory and only maintained because the religious belief was that spirit moved directly without deviation. Thus light being an intermediary , must do the same.

From the outset, light was in the material domain but reflected greater spiritual glory, it was thought.

Empirical evidence shifted the scientific view and created problems with the religious metaphysical view of light. The confusion has never really been decisively cleared. instead the views have been amalgamated. The physical view of light became a pythagorean duality: in space it was a particle, in a denser medium it was some kind of wave. The spiritual realm was unaffected.

To explain this behaviour a medium called an aether was assumed without question. The aether was the cosest medium that possibly interacted with the spiritual realm. Thus when it was decided it did not exist, or it was not possible to demonstrate its existence, a shockwave was sent through the Physicist community that split scientists into several camps, and fuelled the continuing metaphysical debate between those who were monist, dualists, insubstantialists,consubstantialists etc.

The wave particle dualism has been thoroughly examined without any conclusive evidence for one or the other, so a continuum hypothesis is the one we use,without the need for aether. However Aether is not a wrong idea, nor in fact absent from theoretical thinking and explantion, it is just not thought to be empirically supported.

All theoretical physicists subscribe to an alternative to aether and that is space time, and since it plays the same role as the former aether notion it is though adequate to describe the behaviour of matter. The spiritual realm also still "exists", but outside of space time. Theoretical physicists often invoke a demon or two to get a point across!

For me the question who or what is right? is a nonsensical one. What is most useful? is the best question. Asan individual i am free to package the knowledge and experience of my life in any way i wish to accept, and thus i attempt to always stand outside the common view and pursue my own eclectic views, constructing a self sustaining whole, which constantly changes as its empirical base changes.

Since light has been given the preeminence it is not surprising that proprioception has been relatively ignored. When it is added to the mix it in fact sways the whole perception toward an intensity view of magnitude and form, with light providing a "light" but finishing touch, not a foundational one. The geometry from proprioception is a complex gematria of internal relationships, rather than a silent and serene "movie" of relative position and relative motion. The synaesthesia of the senses produces my experience of the world within and without a boundary experience, and the experience of "self" construction vis a vis what is not "self".

Theis experiential continuum is what "i " inhabits as a construction from an "us", and the community that achieves all this is intrinsically linked in and through the boundary with other communities and experiences that are deemed as external. The link is complex , but only because it is fractal. The proprioceptive geometry is a fractal one perforce, and the visual signal serves to add a dimension and visual beauty to that complex of inherent experences.

Without the visual, musical beauty would be our chief aesthetic, gastronomic flavour would follow closely to hand and the warm caresses of close others would found us in this blind world. With the visual, we have a synaesthesia that is sublime.

For me, as a theoreticl basis, intensity is the more general notion of magnitude, and variation of intensity per unit volume the more general notion of motion, but the notion of intensity and volume and unit require a subjective processing system that defines these foundational ideas in order to process them in a comparative process. This consequentially requires a memory system both to hold the input and output data of any process, and to maintain an experiential continuum called "consciousness", shall i say for want of a better word.