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 James S Saint » Fri May 29, 2015 11:33 am

Amorphos wrote: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?

_

To me it seems like you are only half reading what I say and responding with half meaningless sentences (primarily due to ignoring the definitions of the words being used). So I have to conclude that there is a serious communication issue.

Amorphos wrote:Are concepts less real than values?

In RM:AO, they are. But they exist only within the conceptual realm, not in the physical realm.

Amorphos wrote: Are they not essentially two kinds of information?

Information is relative. What is information to one, might not be to another.

Amorphos wrote:.in a reality which is not physical and hence the two can be equally real.


Amorphos wrote:A tree is not different to the changes occurring in its mechanisms?

Depends on your ontology (obviously very different than mine).

Amorphos wrote:A table to its atoms etc?


Amorphos wrote:If you understood what i meant then language [being the fluid thing it truly is] has been effective.

Uh-huh .. but since, I don't ....

Amorphos wrote:I think you did understand what was meant.

That is half of the problem.

Amorphos wrote:More importantly, philosophy has to tackle meaning and has over the years constantly redefined it, and with many different languages.

Meaning is not independent of the language in which it is formulated.

Amorphos wrote:Q. Is Affectance infinite or does it have limits?

The field of affectance is infinite in variety and expanse. That field, is all physical existence.

Amorphos wrote: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.

Sounds like a meaningless/senseless question.
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: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby Amorphos » Fri May 29, 2015 5:30 pm

ok i’ll just assume you contradictingly think that concepts are ‘something’ but aren’t ‘real’.

The field of affectance is infinite in variety and expanse. That field, is all physical existence.


Do you mean it has infinite qualities but is not infinite in form? Or that it is infinite in form? Physically infinite?

If not then my points stands.

Sounds like a meaningless/senseless question.


What’s external to it? [i thought i said that lol] what more to reality is there than Affectance?
What is beyond it?
What is before it?
What is after it?
What makes it?

Btw cardinality = limits, and limits are defined by a, what they themselves are, and b, by that which they are not. A line has something either side of it. a box is defined by itself and what it is in.
-why is that senseless?

_
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 Ben JS » Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:37 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.

Yep.

Fuck 'em. - well.. They've got that covered already.
Formerly known as: Joe Schmoe

ben wrote:I think it is eloquently fitting that my farewell thread should be so graciously hijacked by such blatant penis waving. It condenses my entire ILP experience into one very manageable metaphor.
User avatar
Ben JS
Human Being
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Australia

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:42 am

Ben JS wrote:
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.

Yep.

Fuck 'em. - well.. They've got that covered already.

Welcome back Ben .. again. 8)
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: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby WendyDarling » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:08 pm

JSS,

"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")"-JSS


#5 How did you arrive at this conclusion?

"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."-JSS

Are you saying that energy has no beginning and no end? What about all the unknown types of energy which may negate affectance, canceling each other out, non-existence?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6330
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:54 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:JSS,

"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")"-JSS


#5 How did you arrive at this conclusion?

First, a clarification on (1): Infinity can already be present in physical existence, but cannot be reached or achieved from less than infinity. The universe is necessarily infinitely large, but could never have begun as less than that.

The resolve to (5) involves a little bit of math, but not much. So let me explain some terms...

When I say that an affect is traveling, I am saying that the potential ("PtA") at every infinitesimal point along its path is being affected (raised or lowered) and there are an infinity of those points. Within the ontology, there is nothing at all to slow the speed of affecting of each point by its adjacent point, thus it must be affecting at a limitless speed ("infinite"). And we can call that speed "infA m/s" (just to give it a name with which we can work).

I have arbitrarily used "m/s", meters per second, as the units of measure merely for sake of the explanation and because it is a common unit of measure for speed. And I can divide one meter into an infinity of segments, again using the term "infA" portions of a meter for each segment. So what we have is:

Each infinitesimal point/segment along the path is being affected:
    • At infA m/s speed ("infinite speed"), and
    • There are InfA number of points/segments every meter (an infinity of points to be affected).

The issue is that each point must be affected in sequence from the beginning of a meter to the end of that meter. And that means that an affect must pass through an infinity of points, infA, in order to get to the end of the meter. This inspires the notion called "Zeno's Paradox". If infA points must be traversed, the only way to do it is with an infA speed. And in that case, we have:

infA m/s divided by infA segments
    (infA m/s) / infA = 1 m/s

That is how you get a finite quantity from infinite events - an infinity divided by the same cardinality (size) of infinity yields a finite number. But note that I chose one "meter" arbitrarily for sake of the explanation. At this point in the build of the ontology, we don't really know what length would be appropriate. But also at this point, we don't really care because the reasoning would be the same regardless of the length we chose. And the result is always going to be a finite speed for propagation.

Much later, after we discover what light actually is, we find that this speed is actually the speed that Science has been eluding to as the "speed of light in a vacuum". But at this point, we only know that the speed of affect is a finite value that we can declare to be 1 of some unit as yet to be defined (in contemporary physics, it would be "1 c", but we can't know that yet).


Maniacal Mongoose wrote:
    "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."-JSS

Are you saying that energy has no beginning and no end? What about all the unknown types of energy which may negate affectance, canceling each other out, non-existence?

I am not saying anything about "energy" because that is not one of my words and thus is not well defined. I was taught that the word "energy" refers to "ability to do work", but some people today wish to argue with that. To affect means to cause change which in turn means to do work, so to me, "potential to affect" and "amount of energy" are really the same concept, but I can't use that because the word "energy" isn't mine to declare.

There is a similar issue with the word "aether" and "akasha". There are presumptions concerning the words "aether" and "akasha" and they aren't my words, so I can't say that they are wrong about them. But I can say that "affectance" is what they were trying to talk about, but simply didn't understand what affectance (or their aether and/or akasha) is and thus how it should be expected to behave.

Affectance is knowable. "Energy" and "Aether" are not, merely because they refuse to define those words adequately.
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: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Jun 16, 2016 1:55 am

JSS,

Okay, today has been rough pour moi. Seems like I've been waiting all day for you to help me clarify a lot. I know in some ways you are old school and in others you are not which hopefully will allow me to stab around at ideas that "bother" me.

To me, reality simplified is made entirely of varying types of energy at varying speeds producing all objects.

From what I've read so far about RM:AO hinges on the potential to affect; affect being change, but how many different affects are there potentially? Existence is not one potential, one affect. Is change the best identifier?

Crap, and the rollercoaster is cresting, everyone start screaming...now!

Also struggling with the idea that logic dictates logic. I have a deep seated issue with reasoning inside the framework that is current logic. Logic was set up to acknowledge life in the easiest of terms which doesn't necessarily mean correct or actual.<---This is my latest stab!

James, you showed up...sucker! :o :lol: :evilfun:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6330
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:35 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:James, you showed up...sucker! :o :lol: :evilfun:

Yes. And I noted the clever way that you ensured that I would. Congrats. =D>

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:JSS,

Okay, today has been rough pour moi. Seems like I've been waiting all day for you to help me clarify a lot. I know in some ways you are old school and in others you are not which hopefully will allow me to stab around at ideas that "bother" me.

Feel free, but do realize that there are many of them and they all play at confusing the others. So it might take a while, and a reasonable memory to get it all straightened out (you might have to actually learn something :o .. but I won't tell if you don't).

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:To me, reality simplified is made entirely of varying types of energy at varying speeds producing all objects.

Okay, that is an acceptable ontology (so far). There can be many ways to describe existence. VO is one, AO is another, The Standard Model is another, Relativity Theory another, and Quantum Physics yet another.

The universe being made of "energy" (whatever that means) would be the Classical Physics Ontology. But until the word "energy" is precisely defined, it is like saying "God did it". There can be no argument because there isn't sufficient detail. Specifically, precisely, and unambiguously what do you mean by "energy"?

But for now, I don't need to know. We can accept that as a beginning ontology.

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:From what I've read so far about RM:AO hinges on the potential to affect; affect being change

Correct, although PtA is the ability to cause change (not the change itself).

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:, but how many different affects are there potentially. Existence is not one potential, one affect. Is change the best identifier?

There are only two "potentials" at this point in the ontological build (realize that we are building an understanding of existence that we will later test against our experiences in order to verify whether our new ontology is "true to reality"). The two potentials are to increase a potential or to decrease a potential. We know that those are all there is simply because so far, nothing else exists. We could declare that there is a potential to move or relocate PtA. That would be valid other than the presumption of distance (which we really haven't defined yet). And as it turns out, we don't need to use that ontological element (of the ability to relocate PtA) in order to complete a full understanding of existence. It is an unneeded option.

Currently you are understandably thinking in more complex terms concerning all kinds of possibilities. But realize that we are beginning from the very, very beginning in building an understanding and we cannot accept the notion of those more complex possibilities until there is something more to our understanding of existence such as to offer such possibilities. If the only thing we have thus far is PtA, then the degree or amount of PtA can only be more or less. There is nothing else there (yet).

Start with a truly blank slate - nothing exists except the Potential-to-Affect and the consequential Affectance (which is a more precise understanding of what you are calling "energy"). Realize that long ago, "energy" was understood to be in two fundamental forms "potential energy" and "kinetic energy" (aka "Potential to Affect" and "Affecting").

So thus far, we are actually on the same page .. as long as you erase the rest of the slate to be clean and clear of assumed "knowledge".

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Crap, and the rollercoaster is cresting, everyone start screaming...now!

Also struggling with the idea that logic dictates logic.

I don't know who told you that, but it wasn't true. Logic does not dictate logic. I think Faust or FJ said something like that, but it is obviously circular and meaningless. Coherency dictates logic and that requires consistency and the lack of ambiguity.

Maniacal Mongoose wrote: I have a deep seated issue with reasoning inside the framework that is current logic. Logic was set up to acknowledge life in the easiest of terms which doesn't necessarily mean correct or actual.<---This is my latest stab!

Logic is merely the proper/precise use of LANGUAGE. It was discovered as what is necessary in order to maintain a sane and progressive building of understanding and communication. Since then it has been demonized and obfuscated so as to confuse very many people. But the real "logic" is merely coherent communication, aka "dialectics". Dismiss the notion that there is anything special or magical about it and go on with your business. It is like basic arithmetic. What is or isn't logical will become apparent when the need arises.
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: 25792
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

Postby encode_decode » Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:58 pm

    Now to study this thread . . .

    :-k
      Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

      It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
      (Anomaly654 - 2017)

      But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
      - which is to say there is always meaning.

      (gib - 2017)

      Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
      (Myself - 2017)
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Philosopher
       
      Posts: 1029
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
      Location: Metaspace

      Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

      Postby James S Saint » Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:12 pm

      Wow, this thread might a little too far back. At that time, I had yet to discover the disappointing revelation that a subatomic particle is merely a traffic jam cloud rather than a more ordered "spinning" envelope of some kind. Things took off rather quickly once my little emulator showed me the truth of it.
      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: 25792
      Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

      Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

      Postby WendyDarling » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:47 pm

      The two potentials are to increase a potential or to decrease a potential.

      Is a decrease to zero potential possible? Why can't a PtA remain unaffected, as in repel an affect? If there is an underlying intelligence "guiding" existence, why couldn't it divert potential or hold potential back from change?

      I'd forgotten about posting in this thread. :evilfun:
      I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

      I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

      Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
      User avatar
      WendyDarling
      Heroine
       
      Posts: 6330
      Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
      Location: Hades

      Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

      Postby James S Saint » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:44 pm

      WendyDarling wrote:
      The two potentials are to increase a potential or to decrease a potential.

      Is a decrease to zero potential possible?

      A decrease PtA to zero is a decrease to nonexistence. Existence is made entirely of changing PtA. Nonexistence doesn't exist. 8)

      But yes, for an infinitely short moment at an infinitely small point, it is theoretically possible for PtA to be brought to zero. It could not stay there simply because the combination of waves of affectance that brought it there are all propagating. And also, no two adjacent points of PtA can be infinitely identical.

      WendyDarling wrote:Why can't a PtA remain unaffected, as in repel an affect? If there is an underlying intelligence "guiding" existence, why couldn't it divert potential or hold potential back from change?

      Every PtA is surrounded by PtA and PtA is the ability to affect. How could any one PtA avoid being affected?

      And realize that PtA is not a thing. PtA is a measure of the situation of the surrounding changes in PtA (the ambient affectance).
      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: 25792
      Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

      Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

      Postby WendyDarling » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:10 am

      How could any one PtA avoid being affected?

      :evilfun: Why are you asking me...that was my question to you? :-k And it may not be one.

      Dispersement patterns and force are decided by what? Unguided potential? The cause doesn't decide the potential...the change?

      This all may be over my head keeping it theoretical rather than physical, since it only makes sense to me in terms of physicality.
      I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

      I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

      Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
      User avatar
      WendyDarling
      Heroine
       
      Posts: 6330
      Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
      Location: Hades

      Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

      Postby James S Saint » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:10 am

      WendyDarling wrote:
      How could any one PtA avoid being affected?

      :evilfun: Why are you asking me...that was my question to you? :-k And it may not be one.

      The question was rhetorical. Read the statement just before it for the answer.

      WendyDarling wrote:Dispersement patterns and force are decided by what? Unguided potential? The cause doesn't decide the potential...the change?

      You realize that light photons entering your eyes is what allows for you to see, right? Have you ever thought about how many photons pass by in front of you that do not enter your eyes? There are billions every instant passing by your eyes in every direction, yet you see none of them. Affectance is like that (a portion of the affectance IS that .. "photons").

      If you could grab a great many of those photons (or radio waves) and compress them all down into a tiny little spec, you would form a mass particle. The affectance is made of waves or pulses of PtA (or spiking voltages and EMR) propagating in every random direction. There is no truly empty space at all, ever, even in the deepest outer space. Physical reality is a soup of affectance that is at times extremely condensed into mass particles, but mostly just randomly propagating electromagnetic radiation, EMR .. literally everywhere throughout the entire universe. All space and all matter is made of that.
      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: 25792
      Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

      Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

      Postby Arminius » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:29 pm

      James S Saint wrote:
      WendyDarling wrote:
      How could any one PtA avoid being affected?

      :evilfun: Why are you asking me...that was my question to you? :-k And it may not be one.

      The question was rhetorical. Read the statement just before it for the answer.

      WendyDarling wrote:Dispersement patterns and force are decided by what? Unguided potential? The cause doesn't decide the potential...the change?

      You realize that light photons entering your eyes is what allows for you to see, right? Have you ever thought about how many photons pass by in front of you that do not enter your eyes? There are billions every instant passing by your eyes in every direction, yet you see none of them. Affectance is like that (a portion of the affectance IS that .. "photons").

      If you could grab a great many of those photons (or radio waves) and compress them all down into a tiny little spec, you would form a mass particle. The affectance is made of waves or pulses of PtA (or spiking voltages and EMR) propagating in every random direction. There is no truly empty space at all, ever, even in the deepest outer space. Physical reality is a soup of affectance that is at times extremely condensed into mass particles, but mostly just randomly propagating electromagnetic radiation, EMR .. literally everywhere throughout the entire universe. All space and all matter is made of that.

      Interestingly, before the relativity theory of 1905/1916, the most accepted cosmological theory was the ether theory; and if someone wants to imagine how the universe is full of affectance according to RM:AO, it is helpful to imagine how the universe is full of ether according to the ether theory. But anyway, ether theory and RM:AO are not the same.
      Image
      User avatar
      Arminius
      ILP Legend
       
      Posts: 5697
      Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
      Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

      Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

      Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:34 am

      Arminius wrote:Interestingly, before the relativity theory of 1905/1916, the most accepted cosmological theory was the ether theory; and if someone wants to imagine how the universe is full of affectance according to RM:AO, it is helpful to imagine how the universe is full of ether according to the ether theory. But anyway, ether theory and RM:AO are not the same.

      Yes, quite true. The distinction of the Affectance Field is;
        A) Affectance is provable
        B) Affectance is understandable

      The aether field was speculated in a typical superstition fashion of trying to make sense of other known events. The problem is that they were merely speculating that there must be a field of some kind (and now they have invented the Higgs Field for that purpose) yet didn't understand it enough to properly test the hypothesis. They ended up speculating that the aether field must behave this way and that. After testing to find that there was no such behavior, rather than speculating that perhaps the aether doesn't behave that way, the Quantum Magi cult demanded that the only resolve was that there couldn't be any aether field (a fallacy in logic). The behavior of affectance is both rationally sensible and testable.
      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: 25792
      Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

      Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

      Postby encode_decode » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:04 am

      James S Saint wrote:The aether field was speculated in a typical superstition fashion of trying to make sense of other known events. The problem is that they were merely speculating that there must be a field of some kind (and now they have invented the Higgs Field for that purpose) yet didn't understand it enough to properly test the hypothesis. They ended up speculating that the aether field must behave this way and that. After testing to find that there was no such behavior, rather than speculating that perhaps the aether doesn't behave that way, the Quantum Magi cult demanded that the only resolve was that there couldn't be any aether field (a fallacy in logic). The behavior of affectance is both rationally sensible and testable.

      I agree. This comes down to the underlying logic that you have put into place - the chosen duality to help make sense of things.

      That is all I can think of for the moment.
        Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

        It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
        (Anomaly654 - 2017)

        But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
        - which is to say there is always meaning.

        (gib - 2017)

        Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
        (Myself - 2017)
        User avatar
        encode_decode
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1029
        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
        Location: Metaspace

        Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

        Postby encode_decode » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:46 am

        James S Saint wrote:Wow, this thread might a little too far back. At that time, I had yet to discover the disappointing revelation that a subatomic particle is merely a traffic jam cloud rather than a more ordered "spinning" envelope of some kind. Things took off rather quickly once my little emulator showed me the truth of it.

        I dont think this thread is a little too far back at all - I think it is important for me to cover some historical ground and to analyze the thought process as it evolved. Why on earth were you disappointed at the revelation of a traffic jam? Rhetorical question implied. For me who has never known about the more ordered "spinning" envelope as it relates to RM:AO, the revelation of a traffic jam cloud turns out to be exciting.
          Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά

          It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
          (Anomaly654 - 2017)

          But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
          - which is to say there is always meaning.

          (gib - 2017)

          Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
          (Myself - 2017)
          User avatar
          encode_decode
          Philosopher
           
          Posts: 1029
          Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
          Location: Metaspace

          Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

          Postby James S Saint » Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:46 pm

          encode_decode wrote:Why on earth were you disappointed at the revelation of a traffic jam?

          Because I had hoped to find a fundamental form of harmony at the base of physical mass rather than a furious conflict of efforts. The actual harmony is the logic and consistent behavior, but actual particle mass forms from the subsequent chaos which then leads to a higher order (molecularization).

          It is the fluid chaos of money, influence, and power that causes wealth and health distribution to be so very uneven, forming a hierarchal "particle" governing Man into his eternal misery and eventual extinction.
          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: 25792
          Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

          Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

          Postby James S Saint » Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:54 pm

          And since you asked about how I derived that equation for the affectance distribution of a monoparticle shown in this video:


          The equation is the resolve to the following necessary facts concerning a stable, stagnate congestion of a fluid substance.
          Image

          Imagine a hollow sphere surrounding a particle, "sphere A". There is affectance flow in and out of that surface sustaining the particle's congestion and form. The total surface area represents an amount of affectance and that amount distributed over the surface area represents an affectance density, density-A.

          Then imagine another smaller sphere concentric to A, "sphere B". There is also a density of affectance associated with that surface area, density-B. The question is, "What is the relationship between the density upon the surface of A verses that of B?" The answer isn't quite obvious.

          One can begin by realizing that every bit of affectance that propagates directly toward or away from the center of the particle must travel equally through both spheres. And each spherical region will delay such affectance in accord with the density at that radius. And the delay of propagation is a direct measure of the affectance density, or the amount of affectance "at that spot". It should be expected that the delay, and thus the density and amount of affectance, will be different at each radius.

          Then it helps to realize that at every point throughout all stable, non-moving regions the propagation delay is equal for any and all directions. Whatever delay value there might be for propagating left to right must be exactly the same as the delay for propagating up to down. This is true simply because each point has its own density value, regardless of the direction of propagation (as long as there is no motion of the overall field region = stable region). And that means that the amount of affectance propagating in any one direction (at a stable point) is equal in all directions.

          If the amount of affectance propagating in every direction is the same as every other direction for each point on a surface, then by knowing merely the amount of affectance propagating in any one direction, the amount for all directions at that one point is known.

          We don't know how much affectance is propagating directly in and out of the particle center, but we do know that it is the same amount passing through both surfaces, A and B. And that means that the sum of all of the affectance of the points on surface A must be equal to the sum of all of the affectance of the points of surface B. That is very significant.

          Since we now know that the total amount of affectance is the same for each surface, it can only be the surface area that determines any difference in density. Thus the surface area difference between A and B is the density difference between A and B. And that is going to be true for every radius, simply due to the symmetry of the situation.

          So now we have a relationship between the amount of affectance at any radius to any other radius;
          $$Spherical \; Surface \; Area = 4\pi r^2$$
          $$Ad_r = Ad_0 * \frac{1}{(1+4\pi r^2)}$$

          And then since we know that the very center of a particle has the maximum density possible = 1, we have:
          $$Ad_0 = 1$$
          $$Ad_r = \frac{1}{(1+4\pi r^2)}$$

          Then additionally, we can know the total affectance content of the form merely by integrating over all surfaces:
          $$\int {\frac{1}{(1+4\pi r^2)}}dr \quad = \quad \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{4} ≈ 0.443113$$

          And that yields a graph;
          Image

          Then if we add the concern of the particle not being the only existence, but rather a particle within an ambient affectance field, we get;
          $$Ad_r = \frac{1-Ab}{(1+4\pi r^2)}$$
            Image
          More philosophically, this represents a necessary power (and/or wealth) distribution in a 3D region for free flow, fluid power or wealth that is being delayed based upon complexity of decision making.
          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: 25792
          Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

          Re: Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

          Postby Arminius » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:32 pm

          James S Saint wrote:
          Arminius wrote:Interestingly, before the relativity theory of 1905/1916, the most accepted cosmological theory was the ether theory; and if someone wants to imagine how the universe is full of affectance according to RM:AO, it is helpful to imagine how the universe is full of ether according to the ether theory. But anyway, ether theory and RM:AO are not the same.

          Yes, quite true. The distinction of the Affectance Field is;
            A) Affectance is provable
            B) Affectance is understandable

          The aether field was speculated in a typical superstition fashion of trying to make sense of other known events. The problem is that they were merely speculating that there must be a field of some kind (and now they have invented the Higgs Field for that purpose) yet didn't understand it enough to properly test the hypothesis. They ended up speculating that the aether field must behave this way and that. After testing to find that there was no such behavior, rather than speculating that perhaps the aether doesn't behave that way, the Quantum Magi cult demanded that the only resolve was that there couldn't be any aether field (a fallacy in logic). The behavior of affectance is both rationally sensible and testable.

          I know. And the relativity theory (1905/1916) I was talking about was something that made the aether theory redundant according to the mainstream physicists after the test during the total solar eclipse on 29th May 1919, although this test was criticized.
          Image
          User avatar
          Arminius
          ILP Legend
           
          Posts: 5697
          Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
          Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

          Previous

          Return to Philosophy



          Who is online

          Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]