Defining the Euclidean Point (2016, 2020) by planksip® Philosopher Daniel SandersonPrima facie, my point on the Euclidean point will seem to not satisfy the burden of proof, however, I not

Prima facie, my point on the Euclidean point will seem to not satisfy the burden of proof, however, I not a mathematician. I need your help. My argument is Epistemological and proposes that the primitive notion that we understand and define as the point is not compatible with the material reality of the Quantum World.

In Euclidean geometry, a point is an undefined notion, a primitive concept, of which no other definition is derived. This appeal to intuition and everyday experience (as it applies to the point in Geometry) is what I want to bring under question.A point, defined as a unique space in Euclidean geometry is a fulcrum for distance. Infiltrating Cartesian meditations, three-dimensional Mathematics and the angst of the wave/particle duality, the axiomatic properties of the point affect the very foundations of our cause and effect interpretation of reality. More to the point, the number 1 is under scrutiny. I assert, that the very concept of 1 is imaginary and separated by a variable distance, the length if this distance, I am not sure if the theory will suggest a fixed distance or a changing distance, only the Mathematics will tell. For the purpose of this thesis, i will suggest that this distance is the Planck length and is minimum, limiting physical distance separating the reality from the imaginary. Conveniently this maps onto the Natural number system. Calculating the imaginary concept of uniqueness or the number one is dividing something by itself. A negation node, a path to oblivion. Plebeian sensibilities function quite harmoniously within realms of fictions. Unfortunately, this snowflake fallacy of uniqueness will disappear, the bubble will burst and the magic of our reality will be slightly more lucid.