I heartily approve of the term Apophysics. Coining terms is not as easy as one might think, and this one is well minted. Also, loved all the jokes. :)
Unlike Asimov's, your foundation is very succinct. This may put out some minds as lacking complexity, but I think it more likely that you have achieved Einstein's version of elegance with this formulation. Assuming matter is real, it follows, indeed.
One question: Are you allowing that ideas within apophysical non-space are alike unto Aristotelian forms?
In short, yes; it is in the same conversation. Aristotle's form + matter is an inspiration for apophysics. Very much so in the tradition of philosophy, this could be read as a footnote to the Philosopher.
But you mean Platonic forms, right? If so, not really. There are some similarities with the Forms when looking at the apophysical non-space, but the core idea, this Foundation, is too divergent from Plato to be in the same conversation. The similarities are mostly in the jurisdiction of the next post.
I heartily approve of the term Apophysics. Coining terms is not as easy as one might think, and this one is well minted. Also, loved all the jokes. :)
Unlike Asimov's, your foundation is very succinct. This may put out some minds as lacking complexity, but I think it more likely that you have achieved Einstein's version of elegance with this formulation. Assuming matter is real, it follows, indeed.
One question: Are you allowing that ideas within apophysical non-space are alike unto Aristotelian forms?
In short, yes; it is in the same conversation. Aristotle's form + matter is an inspiration for apophysics. Very much so in the tradition of philosophy, this could be read as a footnote to the Philosopher.
But you mean Platonic forms, right? If so, not really. There are some similarities with the Forms when looking at the apophysical non-space, but the core idea, this Foundation, is too divergent from Plato to be in the same conversation. The similarities are mostly in the jurisdiction of the next post.
No, I did mean Aristotelian, and that makes sense. It's definitely not very compatible with Platonic thought.
Scotus and Aquinas tried to use Aristotle's forms as well, but I must admitted I like your formulation better already. 👍
😳 I need a week, a table, a workbook, a dictionary, and a partner, to work through this one.