Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Arminius » Wed May 20, 2015 8:54 pm

Ecmandu, stop being arrogant and derailing this thread. You are obviously not even smart enough to realise that you are derailing this thread.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 20, 2015 9:04 pm

Okay, piece by piece .. can you handle a long series?

Ecmandu wrote:We're not off topic, you're being obtuse.

Every time you are talking about either you or I, we are most definitely OFF TOPIC, and actually "ad homonym", technically a violation of the rules of the forum (not that such seems to matter).

Ecmandu wrote: You said that when there was zero affectance that there was no existence. This is the same as saying there is no zero.

No. It is not the same as saying that there is no zero, merely no zero affectance.

Ecmandu wrote: You should be honored because nobody else in this thread is smart enough to realize that this is a claim you're making: there is no zero.

Actually, I have a thread in Science and Math explaining the nonsense of absolute zero for scalar qualias. No one has been disagreeing with me on that issue (although I would normally expect more). But that is not what the whole issue is about. That is only one small, very small, piece.

Ecmandu wrote:Apparently that's off topic to you. Probably because it conflicts with your ideology.

Explained already, but better do it again;
Any time we are discussing the person, either person, we are OFF TOPIC and in violation of the rules of this forum. It doesn't matter to anyone how brilliant either you or I think we are or how dumb we might think the other is.
THEY
Do
NOT
CARE (not counting inner fun at seeing others argue about nonsense).
.. and on this thread .. is totally irrelevant.

Ecmandu wrote: You say I'm using infinity wrong, when I say that relative to zero everything is infinite... which is why you're saying zero doesn't exist in the first place

Emm.. no. Why zero doesn't exist (even though that isn't what I said) isn't the same at all as why you are using the term improperly. I explained why you were using it improperly. I also stated that you weren't going to change and we already knew that. I was right. It has nothing what so ever to do with this topic other than to confuse the language being intended.

Ecmandu wrote:, and then getting somewhat angry at me for pointing this out, which is absurd.

That is, typically, 100% your imagination. I have not been anywhere even close to angry. Not even annoyed, merely not really interested in arguing over your language use when I already know that you aren't going to listen (on top of it being merely another derailing of another thread to discuss YOU).

Ecmandu wrote: If you actually look at this whole thread you'll realize that I"m the only poster on topic.

Already explained why that isn't really true.

I appreciate that you agreed with one of the issues involved. But you seem to be agreeing for the wrong reason. If I was merely after getting everyone to agree with me, you would be highly regarded, regardless of your reasoning. But I am not an actual troll, seeking a following .. never have been (I sure as hell wouldn't come here for that). That is merely one of the very, very many presumptions that people make about any male making un-mainstream assertions, so as to keep the mainstream strong.

Quite unwittingly, when people criticize TOO MUCH, they actually support the mainstream collective consensus that they are usually trying to criticize. The world is not so simple as "good guys <-> bad guys". Good and bad come in layers and types, much like intelligence. And it takes some pretty serious intelligence to deal with it all (assuming that you are actually trying to accomplish anything worth while).

And btw;
Confidence: "I am very certain of what I say."
Arrogance: "My opinion is more important/significant to people than yours or theirs."

What is required is BOTH intelligence AND humility.
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: 25797
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Ecmandu » Wed May 20, 2015 10:42 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Ecmandu wrote: You said that when there was zero affectance that there was no existence. This is the same as saying there is no zero.

No. It is not the same as saying that there is no zero, merely no zero affectance.


If you say affectance is EVERYHTHING, than YES, it means you're saying there's not zero. And tell Arminius that even though I made it personal, I'm on topic.

I understand this is a small part of your theory, you think affectance solves ethics of all things.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Ecmandu » Wed May 20, 2015 10:57 pm

James S Saint wrote:Quite unwittingly, when people criticize TOO MUCH, they actually support the mainstream collective consensus that they are usually trying to criticize. The world is not so simple as "good guys <-> bad guys". Good and bad come in layers and types, much like intelligence. And it takes some pretty serious intelligence to deal with it all (assuming that you are actually trying to accomplish anything worth while).


Touche. And there's nothing in the concept of confidence to suggest that it MUST have humility.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 20, 2015 11:24 pm

Ecmandu wrote:If you say affectance is EVERYHTHING, than YES, it means you're saying there's not zero.

No, once again.
Affectance is the fundamental substance of all "things". But affectance is not locations. Due to the time it takes for any one affect to propagate from one location to another, there is ZERO effect from that one affect until sufficient time passes. Propagation and resultant Effect involves more than merely scalar qualia issues.

Ecmandu wrote:And tell Arminius that even though I made it personal, I'm on topic.

And why should I lie to Him?
Are you not capable of reading and understanding what I have stated several times about what is or isn't "OFF TOPIC"? ANY reference to ME or to YOU, is OFF TOPIC.

Ecmandu wrote:I understand this is a small part of your theory, you think affectance solves ethics of all things.

"Ethics"???
You are no where even close to the whole ethics issue within RM:AO. Ethics is about how people "should" (for their own sake) behave toward others in society. Within the curriculum of RM:AO, that topic is a 3rd year course, a "303" type of course (if you are familiar with university curriculum numbering). You haven't made it through "101" because you want to lecture before you learn.

What "infinity" means is a small part of merely the metaphysics of the PHYSICS ontology (only an analogy to the sociology and psychology). It is more merely about the language being used, having nothing at all to do with reality, merely the efforts to describe it => proper language for public use. "Infinity" means "limitless". So use "limitless" or "unlimited" in place of the word "infinity" and see if your statements still make reasonable sense.

But this is not a thread on English, spelling, and grammar.

Ecmandu wrote:And there's nothing in the concept of confidence to suggest that it MUST have humility.

.. but there is within the concept of "arrogance".
And realize, that I said, "what is needed ..". .. for the sake of living better than you are.
Last edited by James S Saint on Wed May 20, 2015 11:37 pm, 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: 25797
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 20, 2015 11:35 pm

dup.
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: 25797
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Ecmandu » Wed May 20, 2015 11:57 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:If you say affectance is EVERYHTHING, than YES, it means you're saying there's not zero.

No, once again.
Affectance is the fundamental substance of all "things". But affectance is not locations. Due to the time it takes for any one affect to propagate from one location to another, there is ZERO effect from that one affect until sufficient time passes. Propagation and resultant Effect involves more than merely scalar qualia issues.

Ecmandu wrote:And tell Arminius that even though I made it personal, I'm on topic.

And why should I lie to Him?
Are you not capable of reading and understanding what I have stated several times about what is or isn't "OFF TOPIC"? ANY reference to ME or to YOU, is OFF TOPIC.

Ecmandu wrote:I understand this is a small part of your theory, you think affectance solves ethics of all things.

"Ethics"???
You are no where even close to the whole ethics issue within RM:AO. Ethics is about how people "should" (for their own sake) behave toward others in society. Within the curriculum of RM:AO, that topic is a 3rd year course, a "303" type of course (if you are familiar with university curriculum numbering). You haven't made it through "101" because you want to lecture before you learn.

What "infinity" means is a small part of merely the metaphysics of the PHYSICS ontology (only an analogy to the sociology and psychology). It is more merely about the language being used, having nothing at all to do with reality, merely the efforts to describe it => proper language for public use. "Infinity" means "limitless". So use "limitless" or "unlimited" in place of the word "infinity" and see if your statements still make reasonable sense.

But this is not a thread on English, spelling, and grammar.

Ecmandu wrote:And there's nothing in the concept of confidence to suggest that it MUST have humility.

.. but there is within the concept of "arrogance".
And realize, that I said, "what is needed ..". .. for the sake of living better than you are.


Relative to zero any existent is limitless. I never said affectance was locations, I said that if you say affectance is everything or to humor you everything or to humor you every existent , then zero is nonexistent. You seem to have a hard time wrapping your head around the idea that relative to zero, EVERY existent is infinite in existence.

Yeah... you'd be a professor I sighed when I saw lecturing and you'd flunk me for being right. Same shit different day.

You made it personal as well by the way.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Thu May 21, 2015 12:24 am

Ecmandu wrote:Yeah... you'd be a professor I sighed when I saw lecturing and you'd flunk me for being right. Same shit different day.

Well, see, there you go. You, no doubt due to serious rejection and ego issues, proclaim that you are unquestionably right despite someone being a "professor" disagreeing with you. That is largely what you, yourself, identified as being "ODD". Have you ever thought about what causes ODD? I bet you could figure it out (although ...).

Ecmandu wrote:You made it personal as well by the way.

Well, okay. I did largely "make it personal" (even though I am sure that you really were the first to say "you" .. but I am not going to go check). More importantly, the reason that I made it personal is that I give a shit. In your real life, things matter far more than they do here. This site, like most others, is merely a "almost dream" sort of thing. It is somewhat of a game, largely merely imagining and thinking, but with the participation of other people. Your real life, wherein people can physically touch you, is another issue. The hope is that what you pickup from the game, might help you in the real world.

So in reality, it is you who "should" (for sake of your own good) thank people like Ussicore, Carleas, myself, and various others for their response to whatever you say, because it, in a very harmless ways, all relays to you what real people might be thinking behind your back in your REAL life. I, personally, accept it that way (even though I know that the average here isn't the average there).

In that one sense, I really do appreciate your participation in this thread. You really do tell me what someone, perhaps many people, might think concerning what I say and in very seldom, but real cases, inform me of my actual mistakes. But in your case, the reverse doesn't seem to be true. You seem to be ignoring what people are saying in response to your assertions. You appear to be defeating yourself (even though, admittedly, one could say the same of me .. although I have my reasons). You keep trying merely to defend your stance, ignoring why it is that anyone is arguing with you. You have been fooled into thinking that anyone who is correct should be accepted and loved. That isn't the real world. And that is what people have been relaying to you. And now I am spelling it out for you .. even though .. it could NOT be more .. OFF TOPIC.
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: 25797
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 21, 2015 1:40 am

James S Saint wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Yeah... you'd be a professor I sighed when I saw lecturing and you'd flunk me for being right. Same shit different day.

Well, see, there you go. You, no doubt due to serious rejection and ego issues, proclaim that you are unquestionably right despite someone being a "professor" disagreeing with you. That is largely what you, yourself, identified as being "ODD". Have you ever thought about what causes ODD? I bet you could figure it out (although ...).

Ecmandu wrote:You made it personal as well by the way.

Well, okay. I did largely "make it personal" (even though I am sure that you really were the first to say "you" .. but I am not going to go check). More importantly, the reason that I made it personal is that I give a shit. In your real life, things matter far more than they do here. This site, like most others, is merely a "almost dream" sort of thing. It is somewhat of a game, largely merely imagining and thinking, but with the participation of other people. Your real life, wherein people can physically touch you, is another issue. The hope is that what you pickup from the game, might help you in the real world.

So in reality, it is you who "should" (for sake of your own good) thank people like Ussicore, Carleas, myself, and various others for their response to whatever you say, because it, in a very harmless ways, all relays to you what real people might be thinking behind your back in your REAL life. I, personally, accept it that way (even though I know that the average here isn't the average there).

In that one sense, I really do appreciate your participation in this thread. You really do tell me what someone, perhaps many people, might think concerning what I say and in very seldom, but real cases, inform me of my actual mistakes. But in your case, the reverse doesn't seem to be true. You seem to be ignoring what people are saying in response to your assertions. You appear to be defeating yourself (even though, admittedly, one could say the same of me .. although I have my reasons). You keep trying merely to defend your stance, ignoring why it is that anyone is arguing with you. You have been fooled into thinking that anyone who is correct should be accepted and loved. That isn't the real world. And that is what people have been relaying to you. And now I am spelling it out for you .. even though .. it could NOT be more .. OFF TOPIC.


Well you're right, that was extremely personal... however, I think it's safe to say from knowing you, that your frustration also lies with people not liking you for being right. We agree on a lot of things James, that's why I said Touche to you in the last post, or post before. We even have some of the same language to describe things. So we both consider ourselves very correct people who don't receive the commesurate response from society, and I think what we disagree upon is actually quite minimal.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Ecmandu » Thu May 21, 2015 1:55 am

I mean honestly James, how many people in the world figure out that if everything is exactly the same it is nothing at all, and build a philosophy from it. You and I are VERY connected, whether you like it or not. And I agree that Uccisore and Carleas have both helped to hone my thoughts... even if Carleas is the more congenial (you use the term cordial) of the two.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6831
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Sat May 23, 2015 9:53 pm

I thought that I would add this issue to this thread considering that the Affectance theory depended on the impossibility of absolute homogeneity or of nothingness.
James S Saint wrote:Since this subject keeps coming up, I thought that I would polish this post up a bit to include the whole real number system and put it in its own thread.


Okay, now given that you have 10 cups with the random possibility of each cup having as many as 10 coins in it, what is the possibility that you have the same number of coins in all 10 cups?

Mathematically that would be (1/10)^10 or 0.0000000001.

The state of nothingness and the state of absolute homogeneity are actually the same thing. If there is no distinction in affect at all in every point in space, there is no universe. Thus for a universe to exist, there must be distinction or variation in affect between the points in space. What is the possibility that every point in space is of the exact same value of PtA (potential-to-affect)?

Well, let's define the term as the specific infinite series,
infA ≡ [1+1+1+...]

Just a single infinite line would give us infA^2 points on that line if you want to include all infinitesimal lengths, all "real numbers". And assuming nothing is forcing any particular PtA value, each point on the line might have a value anywhere from infinitesimal to infinite, the range of that same infA^2 but for PtA.

So the possibility for every point on the line to have the same PtA value (given steps of 1 infinitesimal) would be;
Possibility of homogeneous line = (1/infA)^((infA)^2).

That is 1 infinitesimal reduced by itself infinitely an infinite number of times. And right there is the issue. Also in 3D space, you actually have the infinite real-number cube (to simplify from spherical) of;
Possibility of homogeneous space = (1/infA)^(infA^6)

Normally in mathematics if your number has reached 1 infinitesimal, it is accepted as zero and is certainly close enough to zero for all practical purposes but we are literally infinitely less than infinity less than 1 infinitesimal. For 3D space, we are looking at 1 infinitesimal times itself infinitely an infinite number of times, infinitely times an infinite number more times, and infinitely times an infinite number more times.

Given an infinite amount of time (an infinite timeline, another infA^2 of points in time) and with or without causality, the possibility of running across homogeneity of space is;
Possibility of homogeneity through all space = infA * (1/infA)^(infA^6)
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/infA)^(infA^12)

With a possibility being that degree of infinitely small, not only can it never randomly end up homogeneous even through an infinite number of trials (an infinite time line, never getting up to even 1 infinitesimal possibility), but it can't even be forced to be homogeneous. A force is an affect. If all affects are identical, the total affect is zero. What would be left in existence to force all points to be infinitely identical?


But if that isn't good enough for you, realize that those calculations are based on stepped values of merely 1 infinitesimal using a standard of infA. In reality, each step would be as close to absolute zero as possible without actually being absolute zero using a standard of as close to absolute infinity as possible,
AbsInf ≡ highest possible number toward absolute infinity.

And then of course,
1/AbsInf = would be the lowest possible number or value.

Thus we have,
Possibility of homogeneity through all time = (1/AbsInf)^(Absinf^12)

Now we have truly absolute zero possibility because if we are already as close to absolute zero as possible with "1/AbsInf", as soon as we multiply that by any fraction, we have breached absolute zero, impossibly small. And we have breached absolute zero by a factor of AbsInf^12 ... well, well beyond absolute zero possibility of homogeneity.

Thus Absolute Homogeneity, "Nothingness", is absolutely impossible.
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: 25797
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Amorphos » Sat May 23, 2015 11:45 pm

2)Infinity cannot ever be physically realized


Reality must contain the infinite as the cardinality of any finite resolution to the matter [inc affectance] will always be self-limiting. ...it would not be able to define the whole or otherwise an entirety we could call reality [whats before, after, or around it etc].

The only way to resolve the issue is to sew infinities together in patterns e.g. How a fractal could turn infinite fields of colour [as a metaphor] into shape and form. That would be two infinities; the spatial [emptiness/nothingness] and the informing [fractal formula] infinities. The universe we could think of as the/an eye of that storm if you will.

Creation in any sense has the problem concerning its ultimate causality ~ what came before and so forth.
P.s. A finite explanation assumes God is not infinite.

P.p.s. What on earth would affectance look like?! What’s all around it, or outside of it etc


_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Sun May 24, 2015 1:32 am

Amorphos wrote: What on earth would affectance look like?! What’s all around it, or outside of it etc _

What the affectance in an ultra small portion of "empty" space would look like, IF you could actually see electromagnetic fields is this;

Image

And on a much larger scale, hiding most of the surrounding affectance, a sub-atomic particle forming would look something like this;
Image

Graphically looking like this;
Image

You are living in a noisy soup of which you are a part of the noise.

My personal take on it all:
The Harmony and The Noise.

    There is the ongoing cause of all that is.
    There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause.
    There is a pattern called Life.
    There is an adversary to Life.
    And there is You.. an instance of life.
The rest is just noise

Image
_______________

Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.

RM: Affectance Ontology is an understanding of the noise and the potential harmony within.
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: 25797
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun May 24, 2015 8:32 pm

James S Saint wrote:What the affectance in an ultra small portion of "empty" space would look like, IF you could actually see electromagnetic fields is this;

Image

And on a much larger scale, hiding most of the surrounding affectance, a sub-atomic particle forming would look something like this;
Image

Graphically looking like this;
Image

You are living in a noisy soup of which you are a part of the noise.


Jack is back!
:banana-ninja:
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: 6994
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Amorphos » Sun May 24, 2015 9:22 pm

James S Saint

What the affectance in an ultra small portion of "empty" space would look like, IF you could actually see electromagnetic fields is this;
And on a much larger scale, hiding most of the surrounding affectance, a sub-atomic particle forming would look something like this;


Sure thing but i was referring to the big picture; what would all of it look like? How can it not ultimately be infinite if it is what reality is?
What’s the cause?
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Mon May 25, 2015 3:55 am

Amorphos wrote:what would all of it look like? How can it not ultimately be infinite if it is what reality is?

Just look around you. That is exactly what it looks like in reality.

Amorphos wrote:What’s the cause?

It could be thought of in many ways;
Nothing can be what it isn't.
Nothing is possible until something is impossible.
Infinity cannot be sequentially reached.
No physical thing can be what it is and remain as it is.


It is because of any or all of those things that the physical universe has and will always exist.
As Moses put it, "It is what it is".

Fixed Cross wrote:Jack is back!
:banana-ninja:

Actually, those were from Jacqueline and Anime. \:D/
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: 25797
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Amorphos » Mon May 25, 2015 5:19 pm

James S Saint

Just look around you. That is exactly what it looks like in reality.


Yes but i don’t know what that looks like either. :) With Affectance i imagine a shapeless mass of changing particles, but if i perceptually pull out from that there’s a greater reality, and whatever shape Affectance is would remain a limit of some kind?

Isn't there a class of things which are not Affectance [e.g. God, law/principle, conscience, mental qualia, infinity, concepts and experienced information etc], thus it is not a description of what reality entire is.

*Nothing can be what it isn't.


Like a soundwave and the music we hear?

Nothing is possible until something is impossible.


Or; possibility is a human construct reality itself doesn’t have.

No physical thing can be what it is and remain as it is.


Contradicts the first statement* [sry].

_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Mon May 25, 2015 8:06 pm

Amorphos wrote:James S Saint
Just look around you. That is exactly what it looks like in reality.

Yes but i don’t know what that looks like either. :)

???
Are you blind?

Amorphos wrote:With Affectance i imagine a shapeless mass of changing particles [more like ocean waves], but if i perceptually pull out from that there’s a greater reality, and whatever shape Affectance is would remain a limit of some kind?

"Greater reality"? Such as?

Amorphos wrote:Isn't there a class of things which are not Affectance [e.g. God, law/principle, conscience, mental qualia, infinity, concepts and experienced information etc], thus it is not a description of what reality entire is.

The physical universe is made entirely of Affectance and nothing more. But there is a "Conceptual/Divine Realm" (for ideas, angels, perfect concepts,...) that is separate from the physical. Affectance Ontology maintains two specific "realms of existence"; Physical Realm and Conceptual Realm.

Amorphos wrote:
*Nothing can be what it isn't.

Like a soundwave and the music we hear?

Close enough.
More like "A is A and not not-A".

Amorphos wrote:
Nothing is possible until something is impossible.

Or; possibility is a human construct reality itself doesn’t have.

Although true also, unrelated.

Amorphos wrote:
No physical thing can be what it is and remain as it is.

Contradicts the first statement* [sry].

No, it doesn't. It can't remain as it is.
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: 25797
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Amorphos » Tue May 26, 2015 1:12 pm

James S Saint

???
Are you blind?


Now zoom out of what you are observing and keep zooming out, ~ now do you see what i mean!

"Greater reality"? Such as?


Reality [& or God]. + above + can Affectance describe the whole of reality?..
The physical universe is made entirely of Affectance and nothing more. But there is a "Conceptual/Divine Realm" (for ideas, angels, perfect concepts,...) that is separate from the physical. Affectance Ontology maintains two specific "realms of existence"; Physical Realm and Conceptual Realm.


So reality contains two realms and is therefore a realm/world containing two worlds. Two sphere’s within a greater sphere! Affectance is one of those sphere’s and thus is not a description of reality entire. = there is a class of things which are not Affectance.

Is the outer sphere divine or infinite or what is it?


Ps, fair enough ~ with your further deductions.


_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Tue May 26, 2015 1:40 pm

Amorphos wrote:James S Saint

???
Are you blind?


Now zoom out of what you are observing and keep zooming out, ~ now do you see what i mean!

Ummm ... no, sorry.

Amorphos wrote:
"Greater reality"? Such as?


Reality [& or God]. + above + can Affectance describe the whole of reality?..
The physical universe is made entirely of Affectance and nothing more. But there is a "Conceptual/Divine Realm" (for ideas, angels, perfect concepts,...) that is separate from the physical. Affectance Ontology maintains two specific "realms of existence"; Physical Realm and Conceptual Realm.


So reality contains two realms and is therefore a realm/world containing two worlds. Two sphere’s within a greater sphere! Affectance is one of those sphere’s and thus is not a description of reality entire. = there is a class of things which are not Affectance.

There is the changing and the non-changing. The changing is the physical. The non-changing is conceptual yet still contains non-changing affectance in the form of dependent sub-components. For example, if the definition of a straight line was to change then a square, having four such lines, would also change. So the affecting is more of a "potential-to-affect" or PtA, as described in the introduction to RM:AO, except in the Conceptual Realm, such potential are never realized and nothing ever actually changes. A circle is always a circle, regardless of what it is called.

These two realms are basically the same as found in the I Ching and Plato, as well as very many less explicit scriptures throughout history. The difference being that in RM:AO, they are explicitly proven as the construct of all existence.

So the Ontology covers all changing things and all non-changing things. What else could there be other than a mix of the two? And the changing things are the physical universe. The non-changing things are basically everything else.

The following is an equation for every portion of reality, both physical and not (although "space" is defined differently for the Conceptual realm);
Image


Amorphos wrote:Is the outer sphere divine or infinite or what is it?

If by "outer sphere", you mean the Conceptual Realm (historically called the "Divine Realm"), I think there are a variety of ways that the concept of infinity could apply. But realize there are no physical distances, so there is no infinite length involved except as one of the element of the realm, merely another concept.
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: 25797
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Amorphos » Tue May 26, 2015 2:56 pm

@James
james...

These two realms are basically the same as found in the I Ching and Plato, as well as very many less explicit scriptures throughout history. The difference being that in RM:AO, they are explicitly proven as the construct of all existence.


Right, then you have two sphere’s within a greater sphere. Information [s1]and observing objects [s2]which aren’t physical because reality is all three sphere’s.

So the Ontology covers all changing things and all non-changing things. What else could there be other than a mix of the two?


Something which is both changing and non-changing [everything]. In other words, there aren’t three sphere’s or any such duality, but my device [3sphere’s] exposes the fact that reality is not physical, objects can never be absolute, and perhaps information itself is equally non-absolute.
The Affectance theory assumes physicality and absolutes doesn’t it? If all the ‘quanta’ in Affectance are primary they would need to be physical/absolute i.e. to be ‘Affecting’ and not effecting and effected.
If the nature of things at base [of all three sphere’s] are non physical, we can begin with more subtle entities like ‘observers’ and ‘energy behaviours’. These having multiple spatial and relative entangled positions at once, and acting with principles and patterns in an infinity.

I doubt if any of this makes your maths wrong, but your philosophical position is being questioned i think. That is assuming it to be one where relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong, or otherwise replaced with Affectance theory? Oh and lets not forget that God is the big solid object at the base of absolute solid objects manifest of absolute meaning [the word of God]!?

If by "outer sphere", you mean the Conceptual Realm (historically called the "Divine Realm"), I think there are a variety of ways that the concept of infinity could apply. But realize there are no physical distances, so there is no infinite length involved except as one of the element of the realm, merely another concept.


I agree there are no ‘distances’ of infinite length, the very idea of ‘length’ involves a finite duration in time or area/distance. If QM and relativity are true there are equally no >absolute< ‘physical distances’.

_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 27, 2015 8:25 am

Amorphos wrote:
So the Ontology covers all changing things and all non-changing things. What else could there be other than a mix of the two?

Something which is both changing and non-changing [everything].

I can't think of anything that is both changing and non-changing.

Amorphos wrote:my device [3sphere’s] exposes the fact that reality is not physical, objects can never be absolute, and perhaps information itself is equally non-absolute.

You are violating definition. Anything physical is necessarily real, else it isn't really physical.
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: 25797
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Amorphos » Wed May 27, 2015 4:26 pm

I can't think of anything that is both changing and non-changing.


The values of all quantum particles are constantly changing and yet they remain the same object in the world [e.g. an electron itself is a constant but its values change]] .

You are violating definition. Anything physical is necessarily real, else it isn't really physical.


One has to violate definition otherwise we’d all be reading history. :) ...and right the physical is not really physical because reality isn’t, it is something real which is not defined by one sphere e.g. Universe. Where we define physicality as that which is of the universe, and reality as including but more than that, then reality cant logically and reasonably be physical.

& the other queries?
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Wed May 27, 2015 7:50 pm

Amorphos wrote:
I can't think of anything that is both changing and non-changing.

The values of all quantum particles are constantly changing and yet they remain the same object in the world [e.g. an electron itself is a constant but its values change]] .

The values concerning an object are always changing. The object doesn't change in concept. The concept of the object is not the specific values pertaining to it. A tree that grows is still a tree. The growth is the change of it.

Different things; concept and value, one changing and one not changing.

Amorphos wrote:
You are violating definition. Anything physical is necessarily real, else it isn't really physical.

One has to violate definition otherwise we’d all be reading history.

When you violate definition, you are no longer talking to me. Without agreed definition, communication cannot take place and all sentences are meaningless.

Amorphos wrote:..and right the physical is not really physical because reality isn’t, it is something real which is not defined by one sphere e.g. Universe. Where we define physicality as that which is of the universe, and reality as including but more than that, then reality cant logically and reasonably be physical.

That isn't the way that I define "physical universe". By definition, that which exists is that which affects. Anything that affects is what exists. And as it turns out, all affecting through time (thus all that changes through time) is what the physical universe is.

Amorphos wrote:& the other queries?

I have a hard time trying to figure out most of what you are trying to say.
Amorphos wrote:The Affectance theory assumes physicality and absolutes doesn’t it?

No, it doesn't "assume". RM:AO declares fixed definitions of those concepts (as mentioned above). Nothing is assumed.
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: 25797
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Amorphos » Wed May 27, 2015 10:18 pm

The values concerning an object are always changing. The object doesn't change in concept. The concept of the object is not the specific values pertaining to it. A tree that grows is still a tree. The growth is the change of it.
Different things; concept and value, one changing and one not changing.


Are concepts less real than values? Are they not essentially two kinds of information? ..in a reality which is not physical and hence the two can be equally real.
A tree is not different to the changes occurring in its mechanisms? Like saying humans are the same as their metabolism or some such thing. A table to its atoms etc?

When you violate definition, you are no longer talking to me. Without agreed definition, communication cannot take place and all sentences are meaningless.


If you understood what i meant then language [being the fluid thing it truly is] has been effective. I think you did understand what was meant. More importantly, philosophy has to tackle meaning and has over the years constantly redefined it, and with many different languages.

That isn't the way that I define "physical universe". By definition, that which exists is that which affects. Anything that affects is what exists. And as it turns out, all affecting through time (thus all that changes through time) is what the physical universe is.


True after you had first answered the proposed issues defining reality entire, otherwise false if those problems cannot be overcome.

Q. Is Affectance infinite or does it have limits?

Q. If it has limits ~ is ‘finite’/physical, what’s beyond it and manifesting it?
A limit must necessarily have something defining its cardinality i.e. Outside of the given limit no matter how great.

That isn't the way that I define "physical universe". By definition, that which exists is that which affects. Anything that affects is what exists. And as it turns out, all affecting through time (thus all that changes through time) is what the physical universe is.


So; The Affectance theory >has< physicality and absolutes doesn’t it? And the point still stands. I said 'assumes' because its not fact if it cant answer fundamental questions. all-time is relativistic but you don't believe in relativity. Affectance has no 'all-time' if it has always existed, as that would make it eternal and an entirely different entity.


Why don’t you understand my points are they not simple enough? I mean that as an error on my part. Did i fail to explain the points?

_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users