Reality - Version 0.1

The search function won’t let me find the part where you dismissed my argument without argument and said “I know why you are doing this (made this thread) without even explaining it… I know it’s in science, but search won’t let me use “I know why you” because the words are too common *so I’m combing science threads”. Although, it might also be when I challenged everyone on the board combined to debate me… memory doesn’t serve well.

I literally flipped a switch on you James…

You basically pulled a uccisore on me once, I was very hurt by it, and I immediately started making threads calling you out …

It makes no sense from our prior sorta amiable interactions that I’d flip a switch like that…

I’ll find these posts

While you are fumbling around, see if you can find that time when you said that I called you “stupid” and I replied that I certainly did not. You didn’t find any evidence that time either … which is why I am asking now.

And yes, you do actually get angry at people without valid reasons. You find yourself angry and then attempt to think up an excuse for it. Many here do that same thing (FC for example).

Actually, you know what James…

Damn I’m fucking nuts…

Even if I could find what insulted me so much, I’ve said a lot of stupid shit on these boards

I still have kinks…

Absurdities…

Grudges…

sigh

I cracked mentally…

Thinking about how much pressure I have to step out of my own shadow…

Which isn’t your fault

Shit happens dude. Don’t worry about it.

My thoughts:

I like this - it is true - shit does happen. Sometimes it is very difficult to not worry about it.

We must be courageous and strong if we are to find the truth. I have much faith in James’ words.

I did not get very far into reading about RM:AO before I realized I had discovered something special.

I don’t think you are fucking nuts Ecmandu.

This would be right up there with my favorite things I have read on this forum.

Now I am going to babble on a little:

I do not know “nothing” and I do not know “everything”. All I understand is somewhere in between.

I find that the following does not always work out quite the way I expect:

“Treat others how you wish to be treated”

But with courage I press on because the truth is more important to me than my own self esteem at the moment.
For me: dealing with my limits is a measure of my maturity.

I have been known to be wrong on many occasions - I have written and said some things that equate to nonsense - but I try to remain courageous and strong.

Following is an example of a few things that I have been inspired to write and yet I can see some error in them.

Some inchoate thoughts:

I am not even certain where this one came from: 1 → 1 V 0

RM:AO has even put my mind to: Condensed matter physics

For some reason my mind drifted over: Zero Point Space - some sort of construct that entered my mind.

Let us assume that our Metaspace is actually Zero Point Space

Now lets define the Zero Point Space

The Zero Point Space is a hypothetical space devoid of indivisible points - complete - each point is infinitely divisible.

Contemplation being considered for entrance into my own philosophy:

Our mind is able to direct our next step. Each step we take is changing the dimension of mind. When deciding on the next step we employ our logic and emotion based on the reality that we are experiencing at the given time. Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.

Our confinive reality is bound to space, scope and time. Where we are at contains our horizon limited by the time we have been aware of such knowledge. Each location presents an opportunity to lessen our confinement - making the most of our time at any given location enables us to broaden our wisdom to be more fitting to any situation.

Each subjective philosophy is relative to its confines and is able to find harmony outside of its limits. The individual wisdom is affected by each other individual wisdom and is only ever relative to the absolute. The desire of absolute knowledge is the mind’s drive to be free of imperfection and distraction; this desire is volumetric and contained within each subjective lifespan.

Socializing is the function of the less limited individual who seeks to know because absolute reality encompasses objective reality which is constituted of the various approximations from subjective reality. Respect then should be driven by a great interest in socializing - to find harmony outside of oneself.

I am also considering what the “Limitations of free will” might be.

Currently I believe:

► Everything known was once unknown.

:-k

I also believe there is much more to discover about ourselves and our collective reality.

The implications of interaction is that observation changes intersubjective reality for everyone and not just a single individuals perspective.

James

It is likely that I will come back over parts of this again - but for now I want to make a few comments on what I have read and reignite the conversation.

After this we can come back to the language substrata as I think it is a valuable tool for leaping into the depths of RM:AO - we can further the concept of affectance density fields as this seems like the more counter intuitive thing for me - I will say however I recognize where we have touched on this already - I appreciate that RM:AO is actually pretty simple but it is always good to have plenty of philosophical substance underlying the physical principles - that way the physics can be honed when the time comes.

GToE - I like it. I appreciate that the GUT and ToE are used merely for Physics models - but it certainly helps me to have some sort of reference point to work from. What I see at the heart of Physics, is that we are working with two interchangeable factors - energy and matter - so I see the benefit to taking a further leap into one factor id est “affectance” and an arrangement of it, “PtA”. For me it even becomes somewhat spiritual in nature.

Yes - arguing other peoples theories in favor of the person they are interacting with seems pretty typical to me. Open eyes allow for falsehoods and falsehoods allow for refined truths. Where there are good results the proverbial “finger” is pointing at the truth but that does not mean it is pointing at the actual truth - it could be the truth with a missing factor or perhaps one too many factors. I like RM:AO because it narrows things down quite considerably and gives a fresh starting point to analyze from the bottom up any argument but even from the top down things can be analyzed with RM:AO in mind to sift out inaccuracies.

This is actually where I am coming from - amazingly enough - and being taught from an early age these things become ingrained so it is hard to see things any other way. The current paradigm to me is more about approximations rather than absolute truth. Just the same I am sure the mathematics if used in a more pure sense is able to quantify RM:AO. Reality is what it is all about though so if we seek to understand it properly then we can not afford to live the previously mentioned falsehoods forever - flaws are flaws, no matter how negligible. I can see what you mean by many potential ontologies and RM:AO being a different mindset.

Military Science aside, I think that RM:AO is able to help the philosopher come to more accurate conclusions about what he/she is thinking.

Could you elaborate on Sociological “Impedance Matching” for me? Given how significant a concern it is in AO . . .

:-k

The brain has been kick started again . . .

AO uses the term “impedance matching” exactly as it is used in audio and electronic engineering. Every transfer of effort, affect, or energy from anything to anything else is met with at least a tiny impediment. That impediment is the inherent cause of time and why it is that literally all actions require time. Truly instantaneous change is impossible.

Social movements, intentional or not, constitute propagations of affect, energy, or effort. Every social movement is met with at least a tiny degree of impedance to the change. And that unavoidable impediment demands time for the transfer to take place.

The term “impedance matching” refers to ensuring that just the right amount of force to change is applied, not too much and not too little, such as to allow for the least distortion and most efficient and complete transfer of energy, effort, or affect. Every change in impedance during a propagation causes a mismatch between the flowing effort causing the change and the inherent impedance to the change. That mismatch distorts the “signal” - distorts the precision of the information or effort being relayed. And then it also demands that more energy be provided in order to maintain the complete propagation.

When changes are pushed too hard, there are residual consequences that might include a “backfire” or “kickback” effect (as the liberal hand of the recent USA election demonstrated). Push too much to the left and life will push back too much to the right and vsvrsa. The lesson being, “Don’t try too hard. Give it time, else it will take even more. Be precise and patient”. And equally, if too little effort is made, all of the energy is used up without sufficient results.

Such is a fundamental nature and principle of the universe, a true “god”; “All things take time and energy”. The sacrifice to that particular god is to supply just the right amount of energy and patiently wait just the right amount of time before expecting results. The punishment for offending that god is a degree of chaos, confusion, frustration and potentially death depending upon the degree of mismatching and circumstance. To pray to that god is to study and attend to what changes are being provoked and what impediments reside in the path - to look before one leaps - to clear the path before one attempts the path - to accept responsibility for results - to earn one’s progress - to not want for what isn’t to be had - to attempt only what can be accomplished - to live the rules of “afflate engagement”. Some have called it the distinction between going to Heaven or going to Hell. :wink:

But would you reflect on why it happened in the first place?

Some might do THAT and some might simply sweep it under the carpet. Can you even imagine THAT? LOL

And exactly what leads you to the conclusion that I had not already considered that long before the encounter began? :-k

I asked “Would you”, James.
My post was simply based on your above response - “Don’t worry about it”. THAT response appears to have drawn things to a conclusion without any thought or consideration.

Hi

I could visualize an infinity and universe then consider them to be distinctive, if not completely apart from one another. Then to get universe from ‘metaspace’/infinity, something has to do the impossible, ~ so like a God then. When we look at these things in their own right, the infinite is only the infinite and the finite is only the finite. Thing is, I could equally consider a metaphoric sphere, one which I could extend lines from. Those lines could be of any length infinite or not, and with sets thereof. So now you can have one object which can be both infinite and finite!

There can’t be two or more things at root, ergo whatever the ultimate nature of reality is, it is one thing. So I don’t see how you can get ‘God’ from that.

1 is 1, but god + us + things/universe is many, and if we change our definition of God to suit, it is no longer God et al.
_

Inter subjective does not automatically mean everyone will think exactly the same about what they observe
They might and in general probably do but there is alway the possibility that someone will think differently
Also inter subjective reality is not reality as such so one should avoid confusing the map with the territory

James

Now where were we? I am just going to throw something out there - I hope it makes sense - if not I will go back over it.

Oh no . . . I did not take it as condescending at all. I was actually hoping you would not take my response as rude in any way.

Yes, I really like this idea . . . there is a small gap in communications I have noticed.

I understand the topography of force vectors. I have contemplated what you are saying about cloud density and I will make a response soon.

I am curious about dispersion through 3D space. You say the affectance waves are always longitudinal - I am having a hard time trying to visualize dispersion. Affectance itself must undergo dispersion in any direction - even in your models I see dispersion - is this a language substrata problem? The coalesced aggregates are what is confusing me here; I don’t see a minimum size to the aggregate elements, provided there is one.

Let me know if I need to rethink this - it has been a week since I last looked at anything.

James

For your information: Most of my last post was legit.

The paragraph down the bottom I was poking a stick - I am sure you knew that.

It was indeed my use of the word carrier that messed things up.

You are making sense but as you say the mind can become infected. Once the ambiguity is removed then all is fine. After reading over this post again - it is starting to make more sense as is usually the case.

I have also been busy with other things. Including things away from this forum - that cannot be helped - my living circumstance is not so great at the moment.


OK, I think I get this.

Originally I was asking about the sociological side - but I see that the implications here go much deeper. The “Truly instantaneous change is impossible.” I will have to think about more. But I think I get your gist.

I can see this quite clearly.

What do you mean here by signal?

I take it you are being figurative about energy being used up.

I like this illustration. :wink:

I do have more questions to go over with you. If you could just help me clear the signal thing up that would be great. I might not be reading it right - it seems that we do use language a little differently.

.
Sorry, for some strange reason, my eyes keep overlooking this thread … Hmmm…

No, affectance does not “always” disperse as it propagates, but it would eventually disperse. When propagating toward a higher density ambient gradient, affectance puffs, pulses, or waves actually converge. This is why the concerns of Relativity take place. Time and distance measurements “compress” as the ambient affectance density increases (such as coming closer to a large mass or into “dark-matter”). Light photons (large puffs of affectance) largely maintain their size as they propagate although eventually disperse due to the uneven distribution of ambient affectance through which the photon must travel for trillions of miles.

There is no minimum size of affectance afflates. An afflate is merely a small oblate portion of an affectance field isolated merely for study. An afflate is not a actual particle or entity and any ultra-minuscule portion can be chosen. By choosing millions of afflates and watching their “natural” behavior, the behavior of affectance fields, subatomic particles and their formation can be observed. It can be seen that while a puff of affectance cloud passes through unevenly distributed ambient affectance, the puff begins to disperse (the afflates begin to separate more). And as that same puff begins to enter a more dense region of space, the afflates that make up the puff begin to converge. In the long run, the puff will very gradually lose more than it gains and become merely a bit of the “cosmic background radiation”, CBR.

…Sympathies.

“Signal” is merely a euphemism for “information” or “effort” or “whatever is propagating”.

Perhaps we use the word “energy” differently too. To me “energy” means “effort” or “work”, whether from life or anything else.

I hope you don’t mind James, I saw this in another thread and thought I would make a copy so as not to forget it.

Forgive me if I am wrong but I could somehow see RM:AO here too hence why I copied it.

Continue awakening, and you will see RM:AO in literally everything.

James

This may seem pedantic to you but it is extremely important to me that we keep things very clear.

I can not use the word virtual in the context of our conversation unless it relates to the word divine. Because virtual is also in the sense ‘possessing certain virtues’. Virtual space is not perfect like metaspace as I understand it from your paragraph and my understanding. Virtual Space in the context of computing and physics can not be perfect owing to lack of precision leading to perfection. Virtual Space to me lives in our realm inside of our devices or on paper or what ever other medium you can think of to portray it. We transcend the virtual space in that regard but the metaspace would transcend even us. A lot of ambiguity because if in the sense ‘possessing certain virtues’ then to me virtues belong in metaspace. Virtual as it relates to the divine would suggest lack of corruption - as it applies to our realm I suggest with corruption.

In the context of computing or physics however I would be happy to use the word virtual. Due to this I read your paragraph as follows:

To me, the word “metaspace” refers to the conceptual space, usually Euclidean space. God, and all “angels” are concepts that “exist in” the “Divine” or “Conceptual Realm” of ideas, concepts, and/or principles that govern physical behavior.

I would say that our understanding of totality is incomplete; we can however understand it in a relative sense. We use our representations to understand totality in a relative sense. Would you disagree?

Maybe I get too hung up on hierarchy but the Seraphim are below GOD - Metaspace is above Virtual Space. Failing this I do believe that we can still work in such a way that brings about clarity in a relative sense.

Indeed.

I am sure you are correct. So far I have no reason to doubt you.