First Point

In Euclidean geometry a point has no “length, area, volume, or any other dimensional attribute” (Wikipedia). However a point only has location but no space.  But I always think of a point as a hollow spherical period in the punctuation regular. A point occupies no space, but it is real because it is first innate in me and perfect and therefore we can only describe it in short terms. And what I mean is that you don’t need long proofs to believe that it could really be real because we constantly use the idea and sometimes make something of it by further empirical construction (or innate) in every endeavor.

The idea of a point in “space-time” is nothing but innate because I was born with it and it is perfect because it has no flaw in concept. Another example of an innate idea is the idea of perfection (nowhere in nature). Also, Euclid’s definition of a point seems to be universal as there is much agreement on the axiomatic definition as it is given in most geometry books. We have the idea of a point but can we really see it in the mind’s eye as it is defined by the general consensus among mathematicians around the globe. This is not the only school of thought (Rationalism).

[The other opposite school of thought to rationalism is the discipline where these thinkers attest to the fact that the ideas generated in us are derived solely by experience .]

According to anyone’s educated guess a point not only is dimensionless but it can’t even occupy time because time is material and I’m not talking about the man-made one. It doesn’t have time because the concept withholds in us indisputably forever so far. Can someone prove me wrong according to this previous notion. It is only occupied in our minds as much as we can concentrate on it in the imagination.

The idea does not get old because it is the same point from the point of inception and probably to the end. So from the time that you learned the correct definition of a point until to the time that you stop thinking the idea of a point never changes yet and it never deteriorates. The idea is the same even though it evolved in me after I read Geometry and worked with it.

Like Euclid, the idea of a point is the same in all of us like the Cartesian idea of perfection!  How can we have an idea of perfection when there is no empirical evidence?

I learned the concept of the self-evident, axiom, first truths when I was an adolescent. Like most of you this had to have been in high school and most definitely in the first two years of college here in the United States.  I tell you that the point is the fundamental concept in us from the time of birth and generations past and forward. In my opinion, I think the point is the beginning of everything from start to end and the beginning again – all throughout reality.

Imagine if a point was to take on some physical characteristic?  A dot, if at all in the present, is a vacuum; and, once again it only has location and no dimension.  How big is that space? Infinitesimally small (Hawking, S.). I’m using the word “space” as I should not but I don’t know how else to describe it. The point is absolute nothingness without time but it does not get old but it could evolve in you but the underlying concept is the same.  If it did exist in time it would not get affected and would always stay anew.

So the point grows and collapses infinitely and this is easier to imagine that rather than a point being incepted from nothing and growing bigger infinitely forever. I can’t imagine anything that big can you? If you can I would say that your intelligent is superior to mine. But if you really tested me I would tell you that I would make the leap of faith and say that was God. In our minds and maybe somewhere we don’t know the idea of a point is a form and could be classified as Platonic.

I have to agree with Plato that it does have some kind of form or you would not be able to act on it.  The idea is in me and then it obliterates into nothingness. I try to force myself to make it a cube but I have been trained and conditioned in the other (a dimensionless sphere). Plato would say that it must take a general shape in disregard to the world or you would not know what you are contemplating about.

This concept of a point in our minds cannot be found in nature because in our minds this definition is perfect and nothing in nature can demonstrate a perfect point.  The empirical here is inferior. There are many examples in the world but nothing comes close to the a priori. The a priori is perfect, immutable, and intangible. That’s the way I like it because it is ideas like these that makes me believe in something greater than myself; the world of the forms.

All in all, I think that I am a rationalist and the world starts with infinitesimally small dimensionless-nothing sphere and BANG!