It would turn out that everything I thought I knew about that limit was fraudulent; a belief I told myself (or someone else told me) that was either a lie, or a lack of understanding. It was, regardless, at every stage, a false belief; a false limit.
You see, this is the premise of the current debate with gender identity.
CAN you change your gender?
Let's dismiss the idea that you can "wish" yourself into changing gender, and look at the technology available to us, like your flying and anti-grav boot examples.
With future technology, we could potentially create a system that rewrites your DNA such that the X turns into a Y, but in that instance you've completely remade the body into something it was not.
An interesting debate that has gone on for years surrounds the idea of teleportation.
In Star Trek, teleportation requires a complete deconstruction of one's matter into light, moving that light to another location, then reconstructing it.
There is an argument that what is actually happening is that you are actually just killing the teleportee and creating a clone on the other side. What's to stop you from just taking the energy signature of a subject and then constructing an exact copy without having to destroy the original?
My point in this is that there is a factual limit to how much you can change something before it becomes something completely different.
It was, regardless, at every stage, a false belief; a false limit.
There are hard limits, but only because we are limited by space and time.
Consider reincarnation and God's place in it...
There is a string of thought that everyone and everything contains the same God conscience -- that we are all "re"incarnations of the same, singular soul on its path to full enlightenment and Godhood existing at different places and times, forgetting its previous lives in order to learn its true nature as God.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/w2n/w2n04.htm
With the second school or Vedānta, there is only one Self, the great, unique and unmodifiable Self, another name of which is Brahman. This unique Self becomes multiform in appearance, owing to the diversity of the material envelopes in which it is wrapped; these envelopes—as well as the whole cosmos—are the creation, the 'magic' of the Self; but it does not know. When it knows, the illusions come to an end and the Self is delivered from individuality and from pain. In both these systems, the Self is, as the philosophers say, transcendent to the psychical life. For Sāṃkhya, the Self is only a light that illuminates the play of senses and mind, which are material and by themselves unconscious; for Vedānta, only a magician who takes interest in the magical shows that he unwillingly creates; for Sāṃkhya and Vedānta, 'ideation' is exterior to the Self. The question is whether it is not possible to dispense with such a Self. Śākyamuni answers in the affirmative.
Then there is also a similar but opposing view, called Panentheism, where each individuality of this God does, in fact, have a free will, and the "God-Head" isn't all knowing on account of those individuals having their own agency.
Panentheism - http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncp/f/panentheism.pdf
Panentheism upholds indeterminism: Spontaneity and free will in the universe mean that antecedent causes do not fully determine present events and actions, so the future is not fully predictable or foreknown, even by God; creatures have real choices. In summary, while God is not an individual simply distinct from the non-divine individuals, in the way for example that one human being is distinct from another, neither is God to be equated with the universe or its constituents.
I'm not sure if your belief set falls into either category of thought. It seems like you don't like categorization to applied in this way, and I don't either, but it cuts the fat out of semantic argument if we tread where others have before.
...
My belief is that the latter, Panentheism, is the more likely system, but I disagree with several of its tenants, especially the notion that God does not know the future.
I resolve that particular quandary thusly: That the God-Head knows all potential futures, as he can fully map every possible decision to any possible end, so it is impossible to say he cannot foresee the future. He prepares for any and all potentialities, and can even steer them to a preferred potentiality, not by overriding our free will, but by limiting choice.
"What are we going to eat tonight?"
God offers us definite choice with completely separate outcomes, both to our will and His, but curates those choices such that we don't constantly face infinite possibilities. We are bound by time and space, not Him.
And that's a very important distinction. God is not bound by time or space. Time and space are, ultimately, what every limitation is based on.
Remove time and space, and every limit falls to the wayside.
The reason I find realism in categorization is because even numbers have limitations.
What is the minimum number of sides a circle can have?
Well, it depends on what you define as a circle.
I'd argue a circle is a cycle -- where you begin where you end and you end where you begin.
I think I'm being fair in saying that this is the point of contention you are trying to specify, in how limitations as I see them are purely subjective based on semantics and are just superficial understandings of a one, "uniform," Reality.
I'm arguing that they aren't simply superficial -- that classifications themselves are Reality, well and truly, and not merely a product of diverse perceptions. But in that same sense, they ARE our one, uniform Reality.
Back to the topic at hand, "what is the minimum number of sides a circle can have?"
Approach it from both sides. Say we have a circle with an massive number of sides. Start reducing the number of sides. At what point(s) does the polygon lose function? Well, once you get down to about 4 sides, it's getting harder to say that it functions like all previous circles. At 3 you're pushing it.
At 2 sides, however... It is absolutely clear that it is no longer functioning like every previous circle. It can't close itself. No matter how you draw two sides, you'll end up with either an incomplete 3 sided circle or a straight line going back and forth, which is equivalent to a single side.
Then with 1 side, there is no loop. It's just a line. Beginning and End, forever separate.
This is how numbers function. The semantics matter not, the nature is immutable.
Two can be argued to be a circle, but only if you discount the space between it compared to all previous circles. There is no area to calculate like before.
A single side is not a circle. It cannot operate as a circle, no matter how you fracture space.
These are limitations baked into the most fundamental components of the Universe. The only way one can resolve these limitations are by abusing semantics and calling something that which it is not. One could account that as fracturing time, but since we have such a meager understanding of time's impact on the state of things, we can only speculate.
So, what IS a circle?
A circle is form. Consider, the only way you can build is if there are at least two dimensions. You cannot rest another shape upon a 2 or 1 sided circle, just as you cannot balance a pencil on a flat, vertical piece of paper. The paper will give, and the pencil will fall. To which side will it fall? That's another matter to discuss.
You need a minimum of 3 sides to balance the pencil. You can manage 2, but as soon as the paper gives, it will fall towards the empty side.
Fold the paper in threes, and then place it upright with as even angles and sides as you can manage.
You now can securely balance the pencil on top.
This is the Truth that categorization attempts to address. Different sides have different, potential functions. Not all shapes will have the same functions, just as not every number has the same factors. These are limitations bound to the identity and individuality of the shapes. You cannot overcome the limitations without changing the shape to something completely different.
Reality is a single string with knots tied into it. The placement and pattern of these knots determine the attributes of anything that is. We are all of the same substance, the string, but with different configurations of that string, the knots.
It would turn out that everything I thought I knew about that limit was fraudulent; a belief I told myself (or someone else told me) that was either a lie, or a lack of understanding. It was, regardless, at every stage, a false belief; a false limit.
You see, this is the premise of the current debate with gender identity.
CAN you change your gender?
Let's dismiss the idea that you can "wish" yourself into changing gender, and look at the technology available to us, like your flying and anti-grav boot examples.
With future technology, we could potentially create a system that rewrites your DNA such that the X turns into a Y, but in that instance you've completely remade the body into something it was not.
An interesting debate that has gone on for years surrounds the idea of teleportation.
In Star Trek, teleportation requires a complete deconstruction of one's matter into light, moving that light to another location, then reconstructing it.
There is an argument that what is actually happening is that you are actually just killing the teleportee and creating a clone on the other side. What's to stop you from just taking the energy signature of a subject and then constructing an exact copy without having to destroy the original?
My point in this is that there is a factual limit to how much you can change something before it becomes something completely different.
It was, regardless, at every stage, a false belief; a false limit.
There are hard limits, but only because we are limited by space and time.
Consider reincarnation and God's place in it...
There is a string of thought that everyone and everything contains the same God conscience -- that we are all "re"incarnations of the same, singular soul on its path to full enlightenment and Godhood existing at different places and times, forgetting its previous lives in order to learn its true nature as God.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/w2n/w2n04.htm
With the second school or Vedānta, there is only one Self, the great, unique and unmodifiable Self, another name of which is Brahman. This unique Self becomes multiform in appearance, owing to the diversity of the material envelopes in which it is wrapped; these envelopes—as well as the whole cosmos—are the creation, the 'magic' of the Self; but it does not know. When it knows, the illusions come to an end and the Self is delivered from individuality and from pain. In both these systems, the Self is, as the philosophers say, transcendent to the psychical life. For Sāṃkhya, the Self is only a light that illuminates the play of senses and mind, which are material and by themselves unconscious; for Vedānta, only a magician who takes interest in the magical shows that he unwillingly creates; for Sāṃkhya and Vedānta, 'ideation' is exterior to the Self. The question is whether it is not possible to dispense with such a Self. Śākyamuni answers in the affirmative.
Then there is also a similar but opposing view, called Panentheism, where each individuality of this God does, in fact, have a free will, and the "God-Head" isn't all knowing on account of those individuals having their own agency.
Panentheism - http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncp/f/panentheism.pdf
Panentheism upholds indeterminism: Spontaneity and free will in the universe mean that antecedent causes do not fully determine present events and actions, so the future is not fully predictable or foreknown, even by God; creatures have real choices. In summary, while God is not an individual simply distinct from the non-divine individuals, in the way for example that one human being is distinct from another, neither is God to be equated with the universe or its constituents.
I'm not sure if your belief set falls into either category of thought. It seems like you don't like categorization to applied in this way, and I don't either, but it cuts the fat out of semantic argument if we tread where others have before.
...
My belief is that the latter, Panentheism, is the more likely system, but I disagree with several of its tenants, especially the notion that God does not know the future.
I resolve that particular quandary thusly: That the God-Head knows all potential futures, as he can fully map every possible decision to any possible end, so it is impossible to say he cannot foresee the future. He prepares for any and all potentialities, and can even steer them to a preferred potentiality, not by overriding our free will, but by limiting choice.
"What are we going to eat tonight?"
God offers us definite choice with completely separate outcomes, both to our will and His, but curates those choices such that we don't constantly face infinite possibilities. We are bound by time and space, not Him.
And that's a very important distinction. God is not bound by time or space. Time and space are, ultimately, what every limitation is based on.
Remove time and space, and every limit falls to the wayside.
The reason I find realism in categorization is because even numbers have limitations.
What is the minimum number of sides a circle can have?
Well, it depends on what you define as a circle.
I'd argue a circle is a cycle -- where you begin where you end and you end where you begin.
I think I'm being fair in saying that this is the point of contention you are trying to specify, in how limitations as I see them are purely subjective based on semantics and are just superficial understandings of a one, "uniform," Reality.
I'm arguing that they aren't simply superficial -- that classifications themselves are Reality, well and truly, and not merely a product of diverse perceptions. But in that same sense, they ARE our one, uniform Reality.
Back to the topic at hand, "what is the minimum number of sides a circle can have?"
Approach it from both sides. Say we have a circle with an massive number of sides. Start reducing the number of sides. At what point(s) does the polygon lose function? Well, once you get down to about 4 sides, it's getting harder to say that it functions like all previous circles. At 3 you're pushing it.
At 2 sides, however... It is absolutely clear that it is no longer functioning like every previous circle. It can't close itself. No matter how you draw two sides, you'll end up with either an incomplete 3 sided circle or a straight line going back and forth, which is equivalent to a single side.
Then with 1 side, there is no loop. It's just a line. Beginning and End, forever separate.
This is how numbers function. The semantics matter not, the nature is immutable.
Two can be argued to be a circle, but only if you discount the space between it compared to all previous circles. There is no area to calculate like before.
A single side is not a circle. It cannot operate as a circle, no matter how you fracture space.
These are limitations baked into the most fundamental components of the Universe. The only way one can resolve these limitations are by abusing semantics and calling something that which it is not. One could account that as fracturing time, but since we have such a meager understanding of time's impact on the state of things, we can only speculate.
So, what IS a circle?
A circle is form. Consider, the only way you can build is if there are at least two dimensions. You cannot rest another shape upon a 2 or 1 sided circle, just as you cannot balance a pencil on a flat, vertical piece of paper. The paper will give, and the pencil will fall. To which side will it fall? That's another matter to discuss.
You need a minimum of 3 sides to balance the pencil. You can manage 2, but as soon as the paper gives, it will fall towards the empty side.
Fold the paper in threes, and then place it upright with as even angles and sides as you can manage.
You now can securely balance the pencil on top.
This is the Truth that categorization attempts to address. Different sides have different, potential functions. Not all shapes will have the same functions, just as not every number has the same factors.
Reality is a single string with knots tied into it. The placement and pattern of these knots determine the attributes of anything that is. We are all of the same substance, the string, but with different configurations of that string, the knots.