Reality - Version 0.1

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
381

► First PtA is not a thing or entity, but rather a measure of the situation at a point. The surrounding flow of affectance forms peaks and valleys of potential to affect, PtA. The flowing of the affectance is those potentials actualizing by affecting each other, keeping the entire field very chaotic, much like the surface of the ocean during a storm.

► And this is why there is a predictable rate of random decay of radioactive nuclei - ambient space is subtly jittering at all times and in all places. Such constant fluxing adds to the background harmonics discovered by Hubble (CBR) and eventually overcomes the weak connection between very large nucleus polyparticle coalescence. “Radio activity” is the result as the nuclei gradually decay(fall apart).

NOTE: Perhaps I need to add some information to connect the first paragraph, the image and the second paragraph in a more fluid way.

382

► ALL physicality is made of affectance (ultra-minuscule EMR pulses and waves). When many of the pulses are propagating together in the same direction, they form a “photon” passing through the more chaotic ambient affectance, much like a sound pulse traveling through water.

► If the ambient affectance density increases (more noise/energy within a given amount of space), the propagating bundle is slowed by the increase in interference. If the ambient density decreases, the interference to the propagation decreases and the bundle speeds up again.

► Affects are ALWAYS propagating at the maximum possible. It is only the ambient density that alters how fast that is.

Note that the pink wave rising up amidst the blue wave of propagating PtA is what Maxwell called the “magnetic wave that is associated with a propagating radio wave”. Such magnetic wave portions of “electro-magnetic” waves are actually merely compressed PtA, more PtA within the same amount of space. The propagating compressed PtA wave is associated but different than a standing, “permanent magnetic” field. And note that the strength of the magnetic portion increases as the PtA wave enters a higher affectance density. This directly indicates that an EMR wave entering the Earth’s gravitation will become shorter and more dense, with a higher magnetic portion of the “electro-magnetic” wave. Such compression corresponds with General Relativity calculations (Einstein’s ontology).

And as one could guess, such compressed PtA has a greater, priority, influence over a mere PtA field. And since there is only PtA and its motion (affectance) throughout all physical existence, compressed PtA overrides all other forms of existence. In the more practical world, such is why the electro-magnetic coil produces such high voltage levels - the compressed PtA decompresses to form very high PtA levels (aka “voltage”) that cannot be contained.

To reiterate:

► A bundle of affectance must slow down when it encounters a dense region of ambient affectance.

:diamonds: If the ambient affectance density increases²
:diamonds: the propagating bundle is slowed by the increase in interference.
:diamonds: If the ambient density decreases
:diamonds: the interference to the propagation decreases and the bundle speeds up again.
► Affects are always propagating at the maximum speed possible.³

383

I remember now that my “blue” was actually an RGB cyan and I added a touch of red to my RGB green in order to make a more dominant “yellow” (slight orange).

I also had a switch so as to display only density, in green, only PtA, in yellow/blue, or both together.

The next concern, after getting the display close enough, is choosing how you are going to calculate the ambient density for each individual afflate. :sunglasses:

It might be interesting to display a point by point averaged affectance density so as to get a better feel for the actual field rather than watching racing afflates. The field, although still rustling about, will be smoother, more like a shifting cloud.

384

Further explanation.
[size=85]Written by James S Saint[/size]

The “fuzz-balls” or “Afflates” are not entities. An afflate is a selected very small region of the affectance field. In order to emulate a field with any semblance of accuracy thousands of such selections must be defined and set loose to roam. Their statistical combination is what forms the field.

Every afflate is propagating through a field of propagating afflates at all times. Each afflate will have it’s own assigned values of PtA, density, size, and vector. All but the original PtA values vary for each afflate as they roam through the cloud of others. They are all dependent upon their ambient average as measured at each location they pass.

Since the field is always a bit random, there will be statistical variations in the field as each afflate propagates, much like a small boat floating on a choppy sea. Each afflate is persuaded to veer off a little this way and that depending on the gradient of the density in its immediate vicinity.

Each one of the following “Afflate Light Scatter” animations, is showing a group of afflates encountering an extremely high density affectance gradient due to the presence of amassed affectance (“mass particles”). The “particles” don’t have hard boundaries, rather an exponentially increasing affectance density approaching the center of the aggregation (the “gravity field”). The displayed afflates are point-by-point responding to the affectance density they individually encounter. The animation was formed by calculating the trajectory of each afflate individually along with its individual ambient field density. The paths that you see are the result of actual emulation, not pre-programmed destinations.

That one displaying what appears as an “explosion” is actually many afflates set in a group propagating directly toward an amassed aggregation.

As they get closer to the aggregation, they each veer closer to dead center. But there is no actual dead center so every afflate falls inward, then makes a very tight curve around what you think of as the mass center then “slingshots” outward. As you can see, at least one gets caught in “orbit” around the center of the aggregation, not likely to escape for a very, very long time. Again, each afflate is being examined for its immediate ambient affectance density gradient (very sharp gradient close to the center), it’s own increase in density, and its new veering vector, itic by itic throughout the encounter. The “explosion” is merely the resultant positioning of each of the afflates that had been bunched together until they encountered the aggregate.

And btw, that is showing why it is that light scatters off of materials rather than being absorbed. In concurrent physics, the explanation is merely that their calculations for absorption disallow absorption, so the energy has to go somewhere. They aren’t wrong, but they skirt an actual explanation as to WHY it happens.

The following video explains it with a little more precision:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6-_6__9ZvY[/youtube]

385

Another thing concerning the display is to ensure that depth is apparent by decreasing size with depth, or increasing size with closeness. It appears that your targeted afflates don’t change display size relative to depth.

386

This is not only a view of “empty space”, but also a view of what is going on, on a different scale, within each afflate. And if you were to choose one of those little buzzing portions, inside that one, again on a lower scale, you would see that same image.

That would be an image of space as an observer moved by toward the left or also, on a lower scale, an image of a single afflate propagating to the right.

387

This is a second set of information I have found among James’ posts suitable as Emulation Principles.

Rough unordered draft - a small amount of editing has been done.

We are using “discrete” units as part of the software process of creating an “non-discrete substance” (infinitely divisible). The software can never precisely emulate a truly infinitely divisible substance. The more concurrently normal practice of using field vectors doesn’t apply, because there are no forces involved. So in order to emulate with as high a degree as possible, we use discrete elements but then take an average that includes proximity distances from the nearby elements. In that way, we effectively produce an emulated infinitely divisible field that has specifically chosen properties.

An “afflate” is NOT an actual entity. It is a software tool representing a very tiny portion of a field.

First, the emulator produces, from the randomness and chaos, particles. Those particles automatically form in one of 3 types, a “positive”, “negative”, and “neutral” (although I suspect that you weren’t paying enough attention to know to what those terms refer). The emergent particles behave in exactly the same manner as science has noted actual physical particles.

The emulator is produced for validation.

Relate the opacity of each afflate to its assigned density (from 0 to 0.1). And I used the coloring of blue for positive and yellow for negative PtA, yielding a greenish mix.

I will add to this as time goes on.

388

The Fundamental Philosophy
[size=85]Written by James S Saint[/size]

[*]Existence
When trying to study existence, the first thing to do is to decide upon exactly what “existence” means. In this case, it is only physical existence that is of immediate interest, so “What is physical existence?”

Since we are creating a fresh understanding of existence, we can define any kind of concepts we choose as long as, in the long run, they prove to be truly aligned with reality and thus useful.

I chose to understand physical existence in the following terms:

[list]That which has physical affect, physically exists.
That which has no physical affect, does not physically exist.
Why would I care about anything enough to claim that it exists if it has no affect on anything?

  • pretty simple, but extremely relevant. And that is how the names “Rational Metaphysics” and “Affectance Ontology” were created.

[/:m]
[]Rational Metaphysics is a Method for creating necessarily coherent ontologies. As it turned out, my first effort, Affectance Ontology, covered the entire comprehensive scope of reality, thus I didn’t bother to create any others. I now refer to it as “RM:AO”. Other ontologies could be created and be just as rational if anyone chose to do so.

[/:m]
[]Affectance
In RM:AO, the key substance of physical existence is Affect-upon-Affect = Affectance. In the ontology, physical existence is declared to be made entirely of affectance. From that declaration, further detailed emulation proves whether such a declaration is rational and useful.

Along with the substance affectance, 3D space is also declared (initially merely a “metaspace”). And as it turns out, it is mathematically impossible to have any space without affectance within it. Affectance is infinitely divisible and thus there is no “zero affectance” possible in physical existence (else it wouldn’t be physical as per prior declaration).

To affect is an action, a changing that is taking place. Every change is a changing of the Potential-to-Affect, PtA, of an adjacent point in space. PtA and Affectance can be thought of as voltage (PtA) and current (affectance). The degree, speed, and direction of the changing or affect upon affect causes a propagation of affect, much like a radio wave through the metaspace.

The propagation has a finite speed because it requires more than an infinitely fast change rate in order to cause an infinite propagation rate (each infinitesimal point in space must change to its new value BEFORE the next point in line can begin changing and there are an infinity of such points between any chosen locations thus “infinity/infinity = finite”. There is more detail concerning that in one of my threads). Since no affect can occur at greater than infinite speed, affect propagation is confined to finite speeds (declared to be from 0 to 1 toes/tic).

[/:m]
[]Propagation Effects
As propagating affects cross the same points in space, they combine to demand more and/or faster changing at such points. But in reality, each point is already changing as fast as possible and thus each propagating affect simply has to wait. So affects delay affects, affectance delays affectance. And that is what gives rise to physical inertia, mass, and momentum.

As delays in propagation occur, oncoming affects begin to pile up forming a traffic jam of higher density affecting - more changing taking place within the same amount of space. And just as there is a limit to propagation speed, there is also a limit as to how much changing can occur within a given amount of space. When that maximum occurs, particles form as perpetuating traffic jams of affectance that we refer to as “sub-atomic particles”.

Particles have the property of hardness and inertia simply because so much changing is already constantly occurring within the particle space that no more changing can be easily added. When no changing can be made … that is what we call a “hard object” and is the make of ALL matter and material objects.

[/:m]
[]Positive and Negative Charge
A point can be affected by changing its PtA to be either greater or lesser. The increase in PtA is referred to as “positive change”, a greater potential to affect its surroundings. As an increasing affect propagates, each point traversed temporarily gains more PtA. And as a decreasing affect propagates, each point traversed temporarily loses some PtA. There is no negative amount of PtA. A point either has PtA or doesn’t exist. But there is an average level of PtA in every region. Any wave of affect that increases above that average is a positive wave and any below the average is a negative wave. There is no “below zero PtA”. Thus we inherently have a regional PtA level (how much potential to affect is in the region) as well as a regional affectance density (how much activity/changing is in the region). Anything above the average PtA level for the region is “positively charged”. And anything below the average PtA level is “negatively charged”.

[/:m]
[]Three Fundamental Particle Types
As it turns out, positive affects form positive particles - traffic jam clumps that have above regional average PtA. And negative affects form negative particles with below regional average PtA. These are later discovered to be what science current refers to as “positrons”, “electrons”, and for the particles of even PtA, “neutrinos”.[/*:m][/list:u]

389

encode_decode

Regional Affectance Density - Energy - and Other

This needed to be brought forward again since it was so far back and it will prove useful for the next few things that will take place regarding the emulator.

  • Here are some snippets from an earlier post . . .

Realize that in current Newtonian physics, a “field” is a “force field”, a topography of the mythical force vectors. RM:AO has no such force vectors, thus no “force fields”. RM:AO has affectance density fields, much like the humidity density of clouds or of people in a city. There is no “action at a distance” in AO (Einstein would have loved AO).

So Affectance waves propagate through an affectance field of different density than the affectance wave (again, like a sound wave in water). Affectance waves are always compression and often PtA propagating waves, “puffs”, or coalesced aggregates. The Newtonian physics equivalents are; electromagnetic waves, photons, and mass particles. A Maxwellian magnetic field is merely a compressed electric field (revealed by RM:AO). An electromagnetic wave is a compressed and/or decompressed electric wave propagating through ambient space = EMR.

[list][/list:u]
The blue wave is the PtA propagation (a Maxwellian “electric voltage wave”). The pink or purple wave is the magnetic component. Note that the magnetic component increases as the PtA wave enters a higher density affectance field - a gravity field. That compression is accompanied by a retardation in propagation speed. And that effect is the cause for Einstein’s “spacetime” relativity because both time and distance measures are compressed as the any wave enters a higher density affectance field. Those measure return to their normal by existing the higher density.

The “field” is the point by point variation in the potential of the overall situation (hence; “electric potential” and “Potential-to-Affect”). It is legitimate to talk about a “PtA field” in that sense, just not a “force field”. And keep in mind that a fixed magnet’s “magnetic field” is not the same as Maxwell’s magnetic component of EMR, although related.

Energy

Yes but … What precisely, is “energy”? Decades ago, they spoke of “potential energy” and “kinetic energy”. Those were actually identical to “Potential-to-Affect, PtA” and “Affectance” with merely one distinction: “Energy” was described merely as “the ability to do work” … but what constitutes “work”? RM:AO precisely describes “affect” in simple unambiguous terms (“to cause a change”). They had it right. They just didn’t relate it to the philosophical concern of “what is existence” other than to merely claim that “existence is energy as far as science can detect”. RM:AO is very specific and exact concerning the nature of existence as well as how and why all of the “laws” of physics and science in general exist. So now people get crazy with nonsense speculations of what existence might be - “perhaps those scientists just got it wrong”. There is no room for RM:AO to be wrong because the foundation is totally complete, comprehensive, “whole” and very revealing of why things are the way they are.

Yes. The electric field is the field of potential. The magnetic field is the compression of the electric field (the degree of point-by-point compression), and the electromagnetic field is the propagating combination. And realize, again, that a permanent magnet’s “magnetic field” is a different story than merely the "point-by-point compression of the electric field. A permanent magnet’s magnetic field is more related to the electromagnetic field, but not the same.

RM:AO is actually pretty simple, but once the mind is infected with current complex physics imagery, it can be difficult to see how simple the real picture is.

390

Ambient Affectance

391

Sounds simple enough - I will work on it.

Yes this is something that I am currently interested in.

I will be getting back to you on this.

392

Lol, I figured you would pick that up. the targeted afflates do change size relative to depth just that the fields are small that I am working with at the moment(small x/y field, small planar/z fields or depth relative to the plane) - by this I mean, that it is a small metabox - last night I made that much easier to change - I will set it up so the metabox is twice the size tonight.

:laughing:

I got a kick out of this, thanks James, that was great - you have sharp eyes which pleases me greatly.

393

James

I do have a question for you. I know that everything is connected at the end of the day.

What is this?

It looks like something you are tracking.

Is it something to do with PtA or Density?

A slice of cubic space? Averaging.

394

I know it has something to do with this:

You can only see one slice of the cubic space at a time.

You said the blue ring in this image represents a separate program seeking out and following aggregates throughout the 3D metaspace. << Virtual Space

Are the aggregated groups of afflates?

395

2 charged particles being cast toward each other. This graph displays their recorded 3D proximity to each other as the emulation progressed.

I will be analyzing this tracking method with you.

396

Static ambient density:

Where {a,b,c} is the center point of the cube. $$Ab = \frac{1 }{(1 + 4\pi((x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 + (z-c)^2))}$$

More info

397

398

1 ► Increase the size of the Meta-Box.
2 ► Double the Afflates processed for the larger Meta-Box.
3 ► Make some color adjustments(same amount of distinct yellow as distinct blue, with a lot of green between).
4 ► Calculate the ambient density for each individual afflate.
5 ► Toy with Afflate Scatter.
6 ► Calculate the engagement speed for each Afflate.
7 ► Consider all rules of engagement.

399

Hidden Information

In the following two certainty principles, is to be found among other things, the relationship between afflate density and ambient density.

3 ► To exist is to be affected by the surrounding existence and to affect the surrounding existence.

Each afflate like us is affected by the surrounding existence - its density therefore must be affected by the ambient density.
Each afflate also affects the surrounding existence - therefore the density of each afflate affects the ambient density.

4 ► What it is that we are a part of, surrounds us and also exists . . .

Each afflate is a part of the surrounding existence, and it is only by convenience and convention, that we treat each afflate as we do.

We can divide things up however we want, but let us keep this in mind,

however else one wants to divide things up . . .
. . . obviously it is these divisions that we work with when we discuss these sorts of things . . .
. . . the divisions are a matter of convenience and . . .
. . . standards are just divisions that we agree upon . . .

. . . a standard that we use here is called an afflate . . . the afflate is a division . . .

to be continued . . .

400

The Initial State

Physical reality has been around for ever. There is no way to predict what wasn’t ever there, that is quite clear, what was not ever there was a beginning, therefore there was no initial state, there was just God - nothing can be what it is and remain that way.

What about the perception that we are giving the emulator an initial state - this is supposed to be a drop in replacement for a beginning . . . nonsense, the computer is made of stuff that has been around for ever - James is made of the same stuff and so am I.

“All other forms of affecting can be equally predicted except for the problem of having to gain sufficient initial state information.”

This is figurative only. To gain the initial state information - we play the “hand of god” by executing the program, but we are made of stuff that follows the principles of God. The initial state information is gained from a set of information that appears to have no order - id est random - voila - we continue like the stuff we are made of.