Categories of Existence II

Now many philosophers have created their own categories of existence, or being, which is just one of the reasons i find it important. I suppose that such a task is traditional, in a sense. But such a task is necessary in any metaphysical system. The categories i choose are meant to be very simple because the metaphysical system of reality is a manifold system; one could think of 2-D, 3-D, 4-D and quantum mechanics mixed into one system, and in a sense that is the reality we live in. The system i propose is the least difficult and burdensome, for it operates all properties at once, as we shall see ultimately.

The third property of existence is Quantity. This property is an abstract substance, because its brought about by the observer; more particularly because the observer is another Space and Motion, and understands this fact. For Motion is intrinsically and inseparably apart of Space, and each Motion and Space can be assigned a Quantity. Quantity is completely contingent on the observer, or at least in my view it is. For all things are in existence, and all of existence is one; therefore, in a technical sense, every Space and Motion is one. But Space and Motion are separate. For the form, or essence, of a thing is stable and we call it one Space, but Space must extend or is mere extension, which necessitates Motion of some kind; and Motion in turn implies an unstable state. So it would seem that the true state of Space is constant Motion, therefore constant change.To differentiate between each state of Space by means of Motion, while still maintaining that all Space is one, is the utility of Quantity.

The significance of Quantity is in the observer. And how the observer perceives Quantity can have some major effects on the system. A hypothetical may illustrate what i mean more efficiently. If reality is one Space, then the Quantity of all things are 1. If the observer considers himself/herself separate from reality, then the Quantity of all things are 2. If the observer can perceive Space separate from Motion, then the Quantity of all things are 3. If the observer perceives another Space separate from the Space of reality and the Space of the observer, then the Quantity of all things are 4. If the observer perceives the other Space, in Motion, then the quantity of all things become 5. As one can see, this system can go on ad infinitum. Mathematics is the main system that deals with Quantity exclusively, but Quantity is useless without objects to quantify, as we can see.

I believe the greatest explanation for Quantity comes from Parmenides. Here is one of his statements concerning Quantity, more specifically the number one,”But if one is, and both odd and even numbers are implied in one, must not every number exist? And number is infinite, and therefore existence must be infinite, for all and every number partakes of being; therefore being has the greatest number of parts, and every part, however great or however small, is equally one. But can one be in many places and yet be a whole? If not a whole it must be divided into parts and represented by a number corresponding to the number of the parts. And if so, we were wrong in saying that being has the greatest number of parts; for being is coequal and coextensive with one, and has no more parts than one; and so the abstract one broken up into parts by being is many and infinite. But the parts are parts of a whole, and the whole is their containing limit, and the one is therefore limited as well as infinite in number; and that which is a whole has beginning, middle, and end, and a middle is equidistant from the extremes; and one is therefore of a certain figure, round or straight, or a combination of the two, and being a whole includes all the parts which are the whole, and is therefore self-contained. But then, again, the whole is not in the parts, whether all or some. Not in all, because, if in all, also in one; for, if wanting in any one, how in all?–not in some, because the greater would then be contained in the less. But if not in all, nor in any, nor in some, either nowhere or in other. And if nowhere, nothing; therefore in other. The one as a whole, then, is in another, but regarded as a sum of parts is in itself; and is, therefore, both in itself and in another. This being the case, the one is at once both at rest and in motion: at rest, because resting in itself; in motion, because it is ever in other.”