Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:28 am

Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

The logic of Rational Metaphysics begins with the premise that what has no affect is irrelevant and meaningless. If something has no affect, it cannot be felt by anything nor change anything in any way. Thus from the state of absolute nothingness, affectance is the first and only relevant concern. That is the first step, the premise of all rational thought.

From realizing that affectance (that which has affect, whatever that might be) can only affect by altering something else that has affect, other existence, I can see that it can only increase or decrease the affect of the other, because degree of affect is all there is.

But that sets up the scenario that everything must be merely made of mutual affect, "affectance". As it turns out, that is the same as what Science calls "energy"; the ability to "do work" or "cause change"; to affect.

But then I add the realization that infinity is not physically achievable (by definition). With that idea, I can see that no two items of affectance can have infinite affect upon each other. Also, I can realize that no affect can occur instantly, because that would be infinitely fast.

So now with those 2 concerns, mutual affectance being the only existence and no affect being infinite, I can deduce that affect occurs in waves wherein no points of affectance can be infinitely different than any adjacent point, or from any other point either. Infinite difference cannot exist in any form. Thus a conclusion can be formed; a singularity (an infinitely small and distinct point of affect) cannot ever exist.

But I can go further. I can realize that infinite homogeneity cannot exist either because that would mean that all points are infinitely identical. Infinite similarity cannot exist either, ever.

What that means is that it is logically impossible for space to have ever been a nothingness of infinite similarity and also that there was no singularity that exploded into our observed universe.

Still further, I can realize that what we call "space" has no logical option but to be waves of affectance, never identically uniform and never infinitely dissimilar. So even when we see nothing, we can know that there is always something there and that something, the affectance, is moving at finite speeds.

So if affectance moves at a finite speed, what would that speed be? It would be the speed from which all other speed is measured for it is the speed of affect, the only absolute speed logically possible.

If affectance is all there is, there is nothing to impede that speed of affectance except the affectance itself; affect slowing affect as each point mutually affects each other.

So now I have;
1) Affectance is the only existence
2) Infinity cannot ever be physically realized
3) Nothingness can never occur or ever have occurred
4) Nothing is infinitely different nor similar to anything else
5) Affectance occurs at finite speed (turning out to be the "speed of light")

But then I can also realize that what we call near and far is merely the observation of direct affect versus indirect affect. That, which is directly affected, is what is "near" and what is indirectly affected is "far", by definition.

So one point of affect affects the next points adjacent to it directly. And that point directly affects the next point to that one and so on. By such definitions, we have spatial dimensions and volume.

Every point of affect must affect the adjacent points else it would not exist to them, thus every point affects every other point either directly or indirectly without exception. There can be no other fundamental existence.

What that reveals is that any speculation of a fourth dimension requires that the points associated with it must be affected and more importantly, that they must affect the points associated with the first three dimensions.

We derived our three dimensions merely by seeing that affect can be segregated into three independent directions. We chose that there be three for our convenience. Thus there is no fourth dimension else the affect of that direction would be included in all affect.

6) There are only 3 spatial dimensions, by definition (not observation).

As each point of affect is affected and itself affects the next point, a propagation of affect is described. Waves of affect are realized.

7) Affect propagates in waves that cannot occur faster than the speed of affect.

Since the speed of affect is the absolute base for all speed, nothing can travel faster. Thus if a wave were to, for whatever reason, come into a spin wherein it was chasing its own tail (similar to a bicycle wheel spinning and also tumbling), the bundle of affectance wave (a "particle") could not remain a bundle and also travel as a bundle linearly at the speed of affect. It could not because such a scenario would require that the center of the bundle be traveling at the speed of affect and also some part of the spinning affectance wave inside the bundle be traveling faster than that center, else there would be no spinning and thus no bundle. But that would mean that some part of the wave had to travel faster than affect can travel, which is a logical impossibility.

It is for that reason, a bundle of spinning affect (a particle) cannot ever travel at the maximum speed of affect and anything trying to push it, would encounter logical resistance; inertia. There need be no other force providing resistance. And the faster the particle is pushed, the more impossible it becomes to make it travel any faster. Hence, "no object can travel at the speed of affect (light)".

8) Inertial particles are caused by the spin of a wave of affect thus resisting further affect; becoming firm; material; matter.

Thus from the notion of nothingness, energy and matter is realized because there can be no logical alternative.
Last edited by James S Saint on Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Jakob » Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:02 pm

James S Saint wrote:Since the speed of affect is the absolute base for all speed, nothing can travel faster. Thus if a wave were to, for whatever reason, come into a spin wherein it was chasing its own tail (similar to a bicycle wheel spinning and also tumbling), the bundle of affectance wave (a "particle") could not remain a bundle and also travel as a bundle linearly at the speed of affect. It could not because such a scenario would require that the center of the bundle be traveling at the speed of affect and also some part of the spinning affectance wave inside the bundle be traveling faster than that center, else there would be no spinning and thus no bundle. But that would mean that some part of the wave had to travel faster than affect can travel, which is a logical impossibility.

Doesnt this mean that particles can not move at all? By your explanation, it seems that all particles are already travelling at the speed of light internally, (affect is spinning with that speed), so every speed a particle takes on would be a vioilation of the maximum velocity of affect.
If I got you right.
Thus from nothingness, matter is formed because there can be no logical alternative.

Nothingness seems a poorly chosen word, since this implies affectlessness... I suppose you mean immaterial existence, non self referential, not self-interfering affect...?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5715
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 15, 2010 3:57 pm

Jakob wrote:Doesnt this mean that particles can not move at all? By your explanation, it seems that all particles are already travelling at the speed of light internally, (affect is spinning with that speed), so every speed a particle takes on would be a vioilation of the maximum velocity of affect.
If I got you right.

Yes, you got me right. But the wave can BEND, just as spokes on a bicycle wheel would bend. But if the particle center reached the speed of affect, the spinning wave could no longer spin at all, even bent. If it can't spin, it can no longer hold together as a particle and it would have to disperse as merely a radiation.

A photon spins only the plane perpendicular to its travel, thus it can remain an "object" (half-particle), but it behaves as merely a wave in the direction of travel because it is not tumbling, but merely spinning laterally. the photon has no inertia in the direction of travel yet could not be moved sideways any easier than any particle of similar size.

Jakob wrote:
Thus from [the notion of] nothingness, matter is formed because there can be no logical alternative.

Nothingness seems a poorly chosen word, since this implies affectlessness... I suppose you mean immaterial existence, non self referential, not self-interfering affect...?

Is that better? I wasn't intending to imply that nothingness ever actually existed.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Jakob » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:15 am

James S Saint wrote:
Jakob wrote:Doesnt this mean that particles can not move at all? By your explanation, it seems that all particles are already travelling at the speed of light internally, (affect is spinning with that speed), so every speed a particle takes on would be a vioilation of the maximum velocity of affect.
If I got you right.

Yes, you got me right. But the wave can BEND, just as spokes on a bicycle wheel would bend. But if the particle center reached the speed of affect, the spinning wave could no longer spin at all, even bent. If it can't spin, it can no longer hold together as a particle and it would have to disperse as merely a radiation.

A photon spins only the plane perpendicular to its travel, thus it can remain an "object" (half-particle), but it behaves as merely a wave in the direction of travel because it is not tumbling, but merely spinning laterally. the photon has no inertia in the direction of travel yet could not be moved sideways any easier than any particle of similar size.

But doesn't the speed in that perpendicular direction add up to the speed of the spin itself?

Thus from [the notion of] nothingness, matter is formed because there can be no logical alternative.

Nothingness seems a poorly chosen word, since this implies affectlessness... I suppose you mean immaterial existence, non self referential, not self-interfering affect...?

Is that better? I wasn't intending to imply that nothingness ever actually existed.

Well, it might be good to find a word for it which really does describe what you mean. I can't see how matter is formed from the notion of nothingness either... I'm not sure that is better.

I don't mean to be annoying, but it's a good theory, so it deserves proper terms.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5715
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:51 am

Jakob wrote:But doesn't the speed in that perpendicular direction add up to the speed of the spin itself?
I'm not sure what you are asking with that. I really need pictures in my explanation.

Try to imagine a bicycle wheel spinning but also traveling in space along the direction of is axle, not rolling on the ground, and both spinning and traveling at the maximum speed anything could travel (for whatever reason right now). If half of the tire were painted black and the other half white, the wheel would display a pretty good likeness to a traveling photon wave.

But then to cause that to become an inertial particle, merely bump the wheel such as to cause it to tumble at the maximum speed while it is still spinning. It will then have a 3D spin.

Now if the tire had been traveling at the maximum speed possible for anything to travel, when it began to tumble, it could no longer travel in the direction it was traveling at the same maximum speed, else it would not be able to tumble because some part of the tire, at all times, would have to be going faster than the axle along that trajectory.

If it were impossible for the spokes of the tire to bend at all, even the tiniest bit - 100.0% solid, then once the wheel began to tumble, it would not be able to be moved in any direction at all. It would be frozen in space. Nothing could move it except to break it or slow its spin.

Jakob wrote:Well, it might be good to find a word for it which really does describe what you mean. I can't see how matter is formed from the notion of nothingness either... I'm not sure that is better.

I don't mean to be annoying, but it's a good theory, so it deserves proper terms.

Well as I was just explaining on another thread, articulation is a problem of mine.

What I mean is to say that by the reasoning shown through the article, an assumption that nothing might have existed at any time, would lead to the logical conclusion that waves of affectance and particles of matter must form even without anything else being present. That is to say, as the article points out, that at no time could there ever have actually been a state of nothingness. It is logically impossible. Thus from the notion of nothingness, if we apply merely logic, we see that indeed there cannot be a nothingness, but instead, particles of matter. I'm not sure what word would relay that idea.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Farsight » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:21 pm

IMHO the bicycle tyre isn't a good analogy James. I think you'd be better of talking about a 511keV photon as a wave travelling linearly at c, and then mention pair production and describe an electron as a 511keV wave going round and round at c, then bring in the circles and helixes.

I read the OP and thuoght, yes, that sounds pretty good apart from our difference regarding the existence of the universe itself. But I must say that IMHO the word "affectance" doesn't read too well. I can imagine you're quite attached to this word, but do consider downplaying it, maybe by using the word "effect" and switching to energy fairly early on. I've had a shot at this as a demo, see what you think:

The logic of Rational Metaphysics begins with the premise that if something has no effect on something else, it cannot be felt by anything nor change anything in any way, and thus is meaningless. That's the premise. It's the realization that effect is fundamental, and that effect can only have an effect by altering more of the same. That sets up the scenario that everything must be merely made what science calls "energy"; the ability to "do work" or "effect a change".

But then I add the realization that infinity is not physically achievable (by definition). With that idea, I can see that no two items of energy can have infinite effect upon each other. Also, I can realize that no effect can occur instantly, because that would be infinitely fast.

So now with those 2 concerns, mutual effect being the only existence and no energy being infinite, I can deduce that energy occurs in waves wherein no point can be infinitely different than any adjacent point, or from any other point either. Infinite difference cannot exist in any form. Thus a conclusion can be formed; a singularity cannot ever exist.

But I can go further. I can realize that infinite homogeneity cannot exist either because that would mean that all points are infinitely identical. Infinite similarity cannot exist either, ever, because then there would be no effect, and no energy.

What that means is that it is logically impossible for space to have ever been a nothingness of infinite similarity and also that there was no singularity that exploded into our observed universe.

Still further, I can realize that what we call "space" has no logical option but to be energy that is never identically uniform and never infinitely dissimilar. So even when we see nothing, we can know that there is always something there and that this thing we call energy is moving at finite speeds.

So if energy moves at a finite speed, what would that speed be? It would be the speed from which all other speed is measured for it is the speed of effect, the speed at which things happen, the only absolute speed logically possible.

If this is all there is, there is nothing to impede that speed of effect except the energy itself; effect slowing effect as each location mutually effects each other...


You could maybe talk about gravitational time dilation at this point.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Jakob » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:30 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Jakob wrote:But doesn't the speed in that perpendicular direction add up to the speed of the spin itself?
I'm not sure what you are asking with that. I really need pictures in my explanation.

Try to imagine a bicycle wheel spinning but also traveling in space along the direction of is axle, not rolling on the ground, and both spinning and traveling at the maximum speed anything could travel (for whatever reason right now). If half of the tire were painted black and the other half white, the wheel would display a pretty good likeness to a traveling photon wave.

But then to cause that to become an inertial particle, merely bump the wheel such as to cause it to tumble at the maximum speed while it is still spinning. It will then have a 3D spin.

Now if the tire had been traveling at the maximum speed possible for anything to travel, when it began to tumble, it could no longer travel in the direction it was traveling at the same maximum speed, else it would not be able to tumble because some part of the tire, at all times, would have to be going faster than the axle along that trajectory.

If it were impossible for the spokes of the tire to bend at all, even the tiniest bit - 100.0% solid, then once the wheel began to tumble, it would not be able to be moved in any direction at all. It would be frozen in space. Nothing could move it except to break it or slow its spin.

Now I get it.
That's what I was wondering, it is possible to slow spin down?

Jakob wrote:Well, it might be good to find a word for it which really does describe what you mean. I can't see how matter is formed from the notion of nothingness either... I'm not sure that is better.

I don't mean to be annoying, but it's a good theory, so it deserves proper terms.

Well as I was just explaining on another thread, articulation is a problem of mine.

What I mean is to say that by the reasoning shown through the article, an assumption that nothing might have existed at any time, would lead to the logical conclusion that waves of affectance and particles of matter must form even without anything else being present. That is to say, as the article points out, that at no time could there ever have actually been a state of nothingness. It is logically impossible. Thus from the notion of nothingness, if we apply merely logic, we see that indeed there cannot be a nothingness, but instead, particles of matter. I'm not sure what word would relay that idea.

I see, you were speaking in a context of language. I interpreted it as a statement in the context of physicality.
Obviously 'the notion of nothingness' is a linguistic departure point, not a physical one.

As I see it the whole 'notion of nothingness' should not be present in your argumentation, given that:

3) Nothingness can never occur or ever have occurred

and that in fact we have no notion of nothingness.

Perhaps it suffices for me to understand that the notion of nothingness is self-contradictory. I don't know if I'm creating the problems in your text or if they are really there.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5715
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Only_Humean » Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:31 pm

Farsight wrote:I read the OP and thuoght, yes, that sounds pretty good apart from our difference regarding the existence of the universe itself.


It's sentences like this that make me love ILP.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6193
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:11 pm

Farsight wrote:IMHO the bicycle tyre isn't a good analogy James. I think you'd be better of talking about a 511keV photon as a wave travelling linearly at c, and then mention pair production and describe an electron as a 511keV wave going round and round at c, then bring in the circles and helixes.

I read the OP and thuoght, yes, that sounds pretty good apart from our difference regarding the existence of the universe itself. But I must say that IMHO the word "affectance" doesn't read too well. I can imagine you're quite attached to this word, but do consider downplaying it, maybe by using the word "effect" and switching to energy fairly early on. I've had a shot at this as a demo, see what you think:

The logic of Rational Metaphysics begins with the premise that if something has no effect on something else, it cannot be felt by anything nor change anything in any way, and thus is meaningless. That's the premise. It's the realization that effect is fundamental, and that effect can only have an effect by altering more of the same. That sets up the scenario that everything must be merely made what science calls "energy"; the ability to "do work" or "effect a change".

But then I add the realization that infinity is not physically achievable (by definition). With that idea, I can see that no two items of energy can have infinite effect upon each other. Also, I can realize that no effect can occur instantly, because that would be infinitely fast.

So now with those 2 concerns, mutual effect being the only existence and no energy being infinite, I can deduce that energy occurs in waves wherein no point can be infinitely different than any adjacent point, or from any other point either. Infinite difference cannot exist in any form. Thus a conclusion can be formed; a singularity cannot ever exist.

But I can go further. I can realize that infinite homogeneity cannot exist either because that would mean that all points are infinitely identical. Infinite similarity cannot exist either, ever, because then there would be no effect, and no energy.

What that means is that it is logically impossible for space to have ever been a nothingness of infinite similarity and also that there was no singularity that exploded into our observed universe.

Still further, I can realize that what we call "space" has no logical option but to be energy that is never identically uniform and never infinitely dissimilar. So even when we see nothing, we can know that there is always something there and that this thing we call energy is moving at finite speeds.

So if energy moves at a finite speed, what would that speed be? It would be the speed from which all other speed is measured for it is the speed of effect, the speed at which things happen, the only absolute speed logically possible.

If this is all there is, there is nothing to impede that speed of effect except the energy itself; effect slowing effect as each location mutually effects each other...


You could maybe talk about gravitational time dilation at this point.

Well, maybe its one of those Limy things, but in my circles, we try not to conflate "Effect" with "Affect". :mrgreen:

Effect == the End result
Affect == the Act upon

Or perhaps I should just used the word "influence" and "mutual influence".

Unfortunately, I find that physicists of today, being merely bible-thumpers of another bible, instantly jump into related bible verses, that is.. formulas, and don't realize that energy merely means influence, even if you tell them, over and over and over. So I mention that affectance (influence) means the same as their "energy", but I don't get into trying to make it clear that I am really talking about influence, not that formula variable from their bibles. But yeah, maybe gradually moving from one to the other word might be good. I am making quite a few wording changes on the site. Articulation is my weakness.

"So if energy moves at a finite speed, what would that speed be? It would be the speed from which all other speed is measured for it is the speed of affect, the speed at which things happen, the only absolute speed logically possible."

I like that wording.


I'm not sure why you want to leave photon spin out of the discussion and introduce pair production...? That would seem to confuse the issue to me.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:25 pm

Jakob wrote:Now I get it.
That's what I was wondering, it is possible to slow spin down?

In the case of a photon spin, definitely not. The wave is the speed of affect/influence/energy-propagation that propagation speed is self regulated and thus it determines all else, not the other way around.

The propagation of affect is the "Go-spell" that creates all things. :mrgreen:

Jakob wrote:I see, you were speaking in a context of language. I interpreted it as a statement in the context of physicality.
Obviously 'the notion of nothingness' is a linguistic departure point, not a physical one.

As I see it the whole 'notion of nothingness' should not be present in your argumentation, given that:

3) Nothingness can never occur or ever have occurred

and that in fact we have no notion of nothingness.

Perhaps it suffices for me to understand that the notion of nothingness is self-contradictory. I don't know if I'm creating the problems in your text or if they are really there.

Well, actually I had a slight ulterior motive for that.

"I thought about from where it all came. How from nothingness did all of this universe appear? And then Logic spoke to me and the light shone upon affect and how it matters into all things." :wink:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:28 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
Farsight wrote:I read the OP and thuoght, yes, that sounds pretty good apart from our difference regarding the existence of the universe itself.


It's sentences like this that make me love ILP.

To exist, something has to exist with respect to something else, "mutual affect/influence". What other entity could the entire universe as a while exist with respect to? Or did you want to bring God into this? :mrgreen:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:38 pm

Is being banned from a Catholic site a good sign? :-k [-o<
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Farsight » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:44 pm

James: maybe it's just that "affectance" doesn't seem to convey action, as in Planck's constant of action h in E=hf. I quite like affect and effect, but not affectance, because it's not familiar. I see it's mentioned in wireless networks though, good old google. The photon spin thing was because it wasn't clear to Jakob. It can be tricky to pitch things right to get the meaning across without missing out too much or making things too complicated. Looking at your post above, I'd say don't forget impedance Z0 = √(μ0/ε0).

Only_Humean wrote:It's sentences like this that make me love ILP.
It's quite an interesting one. Take the universe as a whole, and ask yourself if it affects anything else. The answer is no, because there isn't anything else. But the universe does exist. It's maybe interesting that the entymology of the word existence stems from "to stand out", see existence. Or maybe not, but I sometimes toy with the idea that we are made of difference. And maybe I should stick to physics.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Only_Humean » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:48 pm

James S Saint wrote:To exist, something has to exist with respect to something else, "mutual affect/influence". What other entity could the entire universe as a while exist with respect to? Or did you want to bring God into this? :mrgreen:


The Universe is a conceptual construction, our name that denotes everything - except maybe, for the sake of argument, God. In which case, we define a Universe' which means the Universe plus God - and what does that stand in relation to? :P
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6193
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:11 pm

Farsight wrote:James: maybe it's just that "affectance" doesn't seem to convey action, as in Planck's constant of action h in E=hf. I quite like affect and effect, but not affectance, because it's not familiar.

Affectance would actually relate to the "f", not the "h" in that equation, but I can accept that to some people it might give too much pause.

Farsight wrote: The photon spin thing was because it wasn't clear to Jakob. It can be tricky to pitch things right to get the meaning across without missing out too much or making things too complicated. Looking at your post above, I'd say don't forget impedance Z0 = √(μ0/ε0).

But to the casual reader, the brakes immediately lockup when anyone presents an equation. Technical readers don't have very much trouble because they are used to slowly analyzing each sentence. Typically, my writing is too dense at it is, if I casually throw in equations, it gets to be much too dense (requiring serious concentration). Granted if I were trying to convince a skeptical physicist, which is usually where you spend most of your time, I should word things in very technical terms. And if I introduce impedance, I have to justify from where it came and what it truly means.

What I liked most in your rewrite was that in certain instances, you expanding the wording a bit, making it flow much easier.

But don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate your scrutiny of the wording. As I said, articulation is a talent that I lost years ago. I seriously need a writer who can comprehend exactly what I am trying to say and rewrite it in easier, more eloquent English (and graphics would help a LOT).

Farsight wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:It's sentences like this that make me love ILP.
It's quite an interesting one. Take the universe as a whole, and ask yourself if it affects anything else. The answer is no, because there isn't anything else. But the universe does exist. It's maybe interesting that the entymology of the word existence stems from "to stand out", see existence. Or maybe not, but I sometimes toy with the idea that we are made of difference. And maybe I should stick to physics.
The "universe" does NOT "exist", as odd as that sounds. We typically say that the universe exists because we are thinking that it exists to us or to any other person or object and in that regard, we are right to think that. But we are actually thinking of the person as separate from all else when we make that kind of thought and forget, or often do not realize, that existence merely means to have affect/influence upon something. So very technically speaking, and very precisely, the universe as a whole, actually does NOT exist. It is a metaphysics issue (meta- "beyond" the minds of physicists :wink: ).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Farsight » Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:01 pm

Point taken re the equations. Email me re the writing.

As regards the universe not existing, I refute it thus: kick.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Sat May 16, 2015 11:48 am

Does the universe itself, as a whole, exist?

That is one of those "intellectual masturbation" issues common amongst diehard philosophers, pedantically annoying, and of absolutely zero practical value, yet there t is with an logical answer contrary to intuition.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Orbie » Sat May 16, 2015 1:21 pm

Whether it is of practically of zero value is debatable. Such ontology may relieve the pressure of an anathema.It is of practical value.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat May 16, 2015 1:31 pm

James S Saint wrote:Does the universe itself, as a whole, exist?

That is one of those "intellectual masturbation" issues common amongst diehard philosophers, pedantically annoying, and of absolutely zero practical value, yet there t is with an logical answer contrary to intuition.

Yet Farsighted reason for asking the question is relevant.

If The Universe positively exists in the same way that its components exist (i.e. if it is "affectance"), then it must affect something outside of itself.

There are several forms of argument that bring us to this conclusion, not only with RM:AO. The Universe can not both be "a whole" and "all there is". If the universe is all there is, it must be open ended; i.e. a concept rather than a physical "object" or even situation.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6976
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Diekon » Sat May 16, 2015 1:51 pm

That is one of those "intellectual masturbation" issues common amongst diehard philosophers, pedantically annoying, and of absolutely zero practical value, yet there t is with an logical answer contrary to intuition.


:mrgreen:

How does rational methaphysics of affectance affect your live?
Diekon
Thinker
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 am

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Sat May 16, 2015 7:34 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:The Universe can not both be "a whole" and "all there is". If the universe is all there is, it must be open ended; i.e. a concept rather than a physical "object" or even situation.

That is how you can know that it is infinite:
Infinite = "open ended".

Diekon wrote:How does rational methaphysics of affectance affect your live?

It tells of what must have been in order for there to be what is.
It tells of what must be in order to achieve what is yet to be.
Past and future.
Although it would be nice if it could reveal more of the present.

It is a more real science and of use for the same reasons.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Zoot Allures » Sat May 16, 2015 8:09 pm

Saint James wrote:meta- "beyond" the minds of physicists


There you go again with the frickin' false dichotomies. As if there is a special degree that only philosophers can get, and physicists, not. A secret metaphysical handshake that only designer ontologists know.

You can turn a physicist into a philosopher in fifteen minutes (if he isn't already a better philosopher than you), but turning a philosopher into a physicist takes years. If there were ever anything 'beyond the mind', that mind would probably belong to a philosopher sooner than a physicist, I'd think.

You oughta see how Hawking puts philosophers on blast in a couple of his older books. He ain't pulling any punches.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby gib » Sat May 16, 2015 8:34 pm

James S Saint wrote:The logic of Rational Metaphysics begins with the premise that what has no affect is irrelevant and meaningless.


Relevance to what? It certainly has relevance to philosophy, otherwise why even mention it to begin with?

If it were meaningless, your sentence itself would be meaningless since "what has no affect" is exactly what it's talking about. As long as one can conceptualize what "no affect" is intended to denote, it has a meaning.

James S Saint wrote:If something has no affect, it cannot be felt by anything nor change anything in any way.


True.

James S Saint wrote:Thus from the state of absolute nothingness, affectance is the first and only relevant concern.


From a state of absolute nothingness, there is no affectance.

James S Saint wrote:That is the first step, the premise of all rational thought.


What does this mean? That in order to think rationally, one must first think "that which has no affect is irrelevant and meaningless"?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8507
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Diekon » Sat May 16, 2015 11:33 pm

James S Saint wrote:It tells of what must have been in order for there to be what is.
It tells of what must be in order to achieve what is yet to be.
Past and future.
Although it would be nice if it could reveal more of the present.

It is a more real science and of use for the same reasons.


I don't know, you say it is... but what is see is indeed something like a rational metaphysics. You start from a purely rational construct and go on to deduce a whole system without touching the empirical it seems.

With science there is at least a back and forth between theory and practice, where hypothesis is tested against data and revised if needed, which is why it has proven to be usefull, because it tells us something about the world.

Logical deduction conserves truth value, but only that. To get at something true you must first verify with the senses, you need to let some information in... if you start with a mere definition and only rely on deductions and more definitions down the line, you start with something empty and end with something empty. I don't think the method works.
Diekon
Thinker
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 am

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Arminius » Sun May 17, 2015 12:09 am

According to RM:AO "existence is that which has affect".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5696
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users