No Form Action Theory

I:

  Please ask Two Dimensional Theory: Form and No Form how do you evaluate this article. (Omit the specific content and use links instead. In the dialogue, I copied the past content)

  Claude: 

The thinking in this article is very clear. First, the author summarizes Aristotle's relative dualism, arguing that it regards form and matter as two interdependent principles rather than two independent dimensions. Then the author proposes that if the relativity of form and matter is removed and only pure form and pure matter are retained and regarded as two independent dimensions like the xy axis, Aristotle's dualism can be expressed and its theoretical defects can be avoided. The author then points out that if the transformation between form and matter is removed, Aristotle's theory cannot develop. Therefore, the author proposes his own "no form action theory" to replace pure matter with no form and retain form. No form has three actions: motive force, isolation and manifestation. The combination of no form and different forms produces these three actions, leading to the change, presentation and individualization of things. Finally, the author explains why two different dimensions are needed to describe the world. Like the xy axis of plane geometry, it is necessary to find the basic elements of linear space, which are unrelated to each other but can represent any element in the space. Form and no form meet this condition, they are unrelated, and all things are composed of no form and form. In summary, the author skillfully uses the concept of linear space in mathematics in the sequel and proposes that form and no form should be regarded as two unrelated dimensions to describe the world, thus avoiding the defects of Aristotle's dualism and developing his own theoretical framework.

The author then explains that form and no form cannot be directly defined, because defining things themselves requires defining the definer, which leads to infinite regression. However, humans also have the ability of intuitive manifestation. We can intuitively understand form, such as the structure of objects and the speed of fast and slow. Intuitive manifestation is the manifestation action of no form action theory. When we define things and form concepts, this is the isolation action of no form action theory. When we practice theory, it is motive force action. To explain the world, we must jointly use these three no form actions. We intuitively manifest form, and then we can reason that "a thing without any form is no form." This is motive force action. Finally, we isolate things into no form, which is isolation action. To understand things, we must jointly explain them using three no form actions. No form action theory links manifestation, motive force and isolation, three no form actions. So, does no form really exist? After intuition and then reflection, we know that there are things like no form action. When we see individual things, we should reflect on the existence of isolation action; when we witness changes in things, we should reflect on motive force action; when the picture of things appears in our consciousness, we should reflect on manifestation action. This reasoning process also requires three no form actions to explain jointly: intuition is manifestation, reflection is motive force, and finally isolation results in an action.In this sequel, the author first explains why form and no form are difficult to define directly. Then, the author ingeniously maps and corresponds the three no form actions proposed in no form action theory - motive force action, isolation action and manifestation action to human cognitive abilities: intuitive manifestation corresponds to manifestation action, concept formation corresponds to isolation action, and practice theory corresponds to motive force action. Finally, through a series of reflections and reasoning, the author proves the existence of no form action and its three actions. This is a well-written article with rigorous reasoning and clear thinking.

I:

  Please point out if there are any problems with the above content.

  Claude:

In the logical process and demonstration of these two sequels, I did not find major problems. The author's points are clear and coherent, and the reasoning is also quite rigorous. However, several points can be further clarified or developed:1. Regarding the definition of form and no form, the author explains the difficulty of direct definition and proposes that form can be understood through intuitive manifestation, while no form can be defined by reasoning that "a thing without any form" is no form. But these two definitions still seem unclear and inaccurate, and can be further developed.2. The three no form actions proposed by the no form action theory are not clear enough in their connotation and extension. In particular, the distinction between "motive force action" and "manifestation action" does not seem very clear and can easily lead to confusion. This can be further explained in subsequent content.3. The author proves the existence of no form action through a series of reflections and reasoning, and this process of reasoning is quite clear. However, the author does not prove the existence of no form itself, but seems to equate the existence of no form action directly with the existence of no form, which is logically not rigorous enough and needs further proof of the existence of no form itself. 4. The author corresponds intuitive manifestation, concept formation and practice theory to the three no form actions of no form action theory. This correspondence is quite clever, but it needs further proof and explanation rather than just simple correspondence.In addition, the viewpoints of these two sequels are clear and coherent, and the reasoning process is quite rigorous. It is a relatively mature philosophical essay. The above points are just my personal opinions. The author can further improve and develop the article according to his own thinking. Overall, this is a valuable thought and discussion.