Which is First?

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Which is First?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:47 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Is it me or is that a revolutionary insight, about c being a distance?
Its genius.
Ive been working that problem since I can remember. I got close now and then but never saw this step.

Good thing this site registers the date of you posting it. No wannabe Nobel laureate can claim this find.

I wouldn't pop the champagne cork just yet



The speed of light is determined by something that has nothing to do with light: causality.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:55 am

Serendipper wrote:
Now that is interesting. Did you make those videos? I watched all on that channel, but I don't understand what that cloud is. The infinite divisibility is something I can't get my head around either.

Yes, I made those videos. You don't understand what which "cloud" is??

As far as infinite divisibility, just as there is always a number greater than any number given, there is also always a number lesser than any non-zero decimal. And such numbers represent quantities, of whatever. What is hard to comprehend about that?

Serendipper wrote:I do like the idea though because I've often wondered if matter can "well-up" from seemingly nothing in space which gives the illusion of dark matter threads like a spider web of galaxies.

Matter "wells up" from a great, great deal of chaotic ultra-minuscule EMR (aka "affectance"). Such is found in the center of stars and black holes. The affectance density must be very high such as expressed in this video:


Serendipper wrote: I'm not fond of the big bang idea, although they claim it's passed many tests. Fill me in on this idea. In the mean time I'm going to read your blog and search for more on this forum. Lots of stuff came up on google when I searched for Affectance Ontology.

There was no "Big Bang". Every bit of supposed evidence for it has been shot down. It was a religiously injected notion.

I authored Affectance Ontology because it can be totally, logically proven (it is not a speculation) and it explains literally every scientifically noted observation, even those that scientists preach as unexplainable (even the famed "Young's Double-Slit" experiment).

If you can follow logic without prejudice, you will become a believer too.

Serendipper wrote:

That was a very good video, although I think that he got his cart before his horse on a couple of things. I loved that he properly accredited Henry Lorentz. And what he refers to as "speed of causality" is exactly identical to what I refer to as the "speed of affect". I used "affect" rather than "cause" simply because existence can be defined in terms of "that which affects". The term "that which causes" is a little more dubious. It is merely a language and philosophy issue, but the bottom line is that they are identical.

Serendipper wrote:The speed of light is determined by something that has nothing to do with light: causality.

I can explain (again) exactly why it is that light travels at that particular speed and never faster. And yes it is related to causality, but more obviously related to affect. The speed is the fall out of two infinitely fast occurrences yielding a necessarily finite result. And he was also correct about the fact that the universe could not exist at all if affect propagated at an infinite speed. But note that he did not know WHY causality/affect/EMR cannot travel at infinite speed, but rather only that it must travel at a finite speed in order for the universe to exist.

Serendipper wrote:As far as I know, all EM waves travel at the same speed, but the higher frequency means more movement per distance and hence more energy is required to maintain that frequency.

You are right about that. The speed of propagation c, is independent of the "frequency" ("equivalent frequency" - there is no actual oscillation going on) as long as there are no mass particles involved (aka "total vacuum").

And "c" is NOT a "distance".

Time is the measure of relative changing between two changing events.
Distance is the measure of the average amount of ambient changing going on in a region (affectance density).

Those are the reasons why relativity works as it does.

And since you mentioned it, "Dark Matter" is merely vast regions of higher affectance density (that green cloudy stuff in the videos), slowing light, creating more gravitational migration (no mass particles required), and skewing measurements of distance (leading to erroneous notions of how far and how fast things are moving). Their use of it in astrophysics is just (even though they seem to be oblivious as to what it is).

Serendipper wrote:Planck length is more numerology than physics at this point

Exactly. I have been preaching that for years.

Serendipper wrote:c is the tipping point where photons start turning to mass as more energy is added

Actually it is the other way around. It is at c that mass becomes light and finally losses all of its "rest mass". The issue is merely one of whether the entity is formed of affects traveling entirely in a single direction (a "photon") or whether the entity is formed of a chaos of affects traveling in random directions. All affects (on that level of the physics) travel at exact the same speed (considering their environment), but a mass is formed when the affects traverse each other, causing delays in their propagation. Without those delays, there could be no mass at all. And if you removed all transverse affectance from any mass particle (by magically encouraging it to out run transverse interference) what is left of what was a mass particle is only whatever affects were traveling in the same direction. And that is what a light photon 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: 25562
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:28 am

James S Saint wrote:Yes, I made those videos. You don't understand what which "cloud" is??

Impressive! The green cloud.

As far as infinite divisibility, just as there is always a number greater than any number given, there is also always a number lesser than any non-zero decimal. And such numbers represent quantities, of whatever. What is hard to comprehend about that?

Numbers are a construct. They don't exist. You can't use something humans conjured to prove something in reality.

Serendipper wrote:I do like the idea though because I've often wondered if matter can "well-up" from seemingly nothing in space which gives the illusion of dark matter threads like a spider web of galaxies.

Matter "wells up" from a great, great deal of chaotic ultra-minuscule EMR (aka "affectance"). Such is found in the center of stars and black holes. The affectance density must be very high such as expressed in this video:

I watched all of them on your channel. What is the basis for the postulation of "ultra-miniscule EMR"? How do you know what is in the center of stars and black holes?

Serendipper wrote: I'm not fond of the big bang idea, although they claim it's passed many tests. Fill me in on this idea. In the mean time I'm going to read your blog and search for more on this forum. Lots of stuff came up on google when I searched for Affectance Ontology.

There was no "Big Bang". Every bit of supposed evidence for it has been shot down. It was a religiously injected notion.

Really? I thought all the evidence was supporting the big bang model.

I authored Affectance Ontology because it can be totally, logically proven (it is not a speculation) and it explains literally every scientifically noted observation, even those that scientists preach as unexplainable (even the famed "Young's Double-Slit" experiment).

If you can follow logic without prejudice, you will become a believer too.

Well lay it on me!

That was a very good video, although I think that he got his cart before his horse on a couple of things. I loved that he properly accredited Henry Lorentz. And what he refers to as "speed of causality" is exactly identical to what I refer to as the "speed of affect". I used "affect" rather than "cause" simply because existence can be defined in terms of "that which affects". The term "that which causes" is a little more dubious. It is merely a language and philosophy issue, but the bottom line is that they are identical.

Yes, I saw that in your video about affecting and thought that things could exist regardless if they affect anything. I don't see why affectance is necessary to define existence. I mean, for all intents and purposes, you are right, but still.

I can explain (again) exactly why it is that light travels at that particular speed and never faster. And yes it is related to causality, but more obviously related to affect. The speed is the fall out of two infinitely fast occurrences yielding a necessarily finite result.

What? Fallout of infinitely fast occurrences of what? And how does a fallout yield a finite result? And why is it c?

And he was also correct about the fact that the universe could not exist at all if affect propagated at an infinite speed. But note that he did not know WHY causality/affect/EMR cannot travel at infinite speed, but rather only that it must travel at a finite speed in order for the universe to exist.

It would be the same point of view that light has now. That's what I said several pages ago. From the POV of light, there is no universe. To create a universe, slow down the speed of causality then space and time will result. If you want to call it affectance, that's fine because cause and affect are pretty close.

And "c" is NOT a "distance".

Time is the measure of relative changing between two changing events.
Distance is the measure of the average amount of ambient changing going on in a region (affectance density).

Yeah, the speed of causality or affectance would depend on how fast states can change. Nothing to do with distance. I think the distance theory was brought up due to the minimum wavelength idea. That would be the highest possible frequency and highest energy state before energy starts turning to mass. My tipping point idea. I'm pretty confident that c just happens to be the point were more energy added will go to creating mass and slow the particle/packet of energy. It seems there are many ways to arrive at the same tipping point whether it be by higgs field or lorenz or whatever. c just happens to be the point that more energy will make mass.

And since you mentioned it, "Dark Matter" is merely vast regions of higher affectance density (that green cloudy stuff in the videos), slowing light, creating more gravitational migration (no mass particles required), and skewing measurements of distance (leading to erroneous notions of how far and how fast things are moving). Their use of it in astrophysics is just (even though they seem to be oblivious as to what it is).

I thought dark matter was black holes. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/ ... lack-holes

Serendipper wrote:Planck length is more numerology than physics at this point

Exactly. I have been preaching that for years.

So it's settled then?

Serendipper wrote:c is the tipping point where photons start turning to mass as more energy is added

Actually it is the other way around. It is at c that mass becomes light and finally losses all of its "rest mass".

You really think so? Maybe it goes both ways. I don't see why not. The important thing is the tipping point. That's the answer to the question of why light travels the speed it does... because if it goes slower or tries to go faster, it will have mass and not be light.

The issue is merely one of whether the entity is formed of affects traveling entirely in a single direction (a "photon") or whether the entity is formed of a chaos of affects traveling in random directions.

Chaos is not random. But on objects that small, randomness is certain.

All affects (on that level of the physics) travel at exact the same speed (considering their environment), but a mass is formed when the affects traverse each other, causing delays in their propagation.

I like that idea. But where do the affects come from?

Without those delays, there could be no mass at all. And if you removed all transverse affectance from any mass particle (by magically encouraging it to out run transverse interference) what is left of what was a mass particle is only whatever affects were traveling in the same direction. And that is what a light photon is.

I guess that seems right. I just need to learn more about this affectance idea.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:21 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Is it me or is that a revolutionary insight, about c being a distance?
Its genius.
Ive been working that problem since I can remember. I got close now and then but never saw this step.

Good thing this site registers the date of you posting it. No wannabe Nobel laureate can claim this find.

I wouldn't pop the champagne cork just yet



The speed of light is determined by something that has nothing to do with light: causality.


Hahaha,

Funny.

The idea that causality has nothing to do with light. That there is anything that causality's nothing to do with.



Carry on.

:D
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:13 pm

Cleary, all science is about describing the conditions of causality.

This is why I work wit logic, so as to see if I can produce these conditions from irreducible logical axioms.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:19 pm

RM doesn't work because it has the end product of its calculations fulfill the required condition of the beginning steps.

What causes a unit of affectance to affect another unit? "It simply does because in RM existence is called affectance" is the official answer.

But the real answer is that statistical infinitesimals aren't realities.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:23 pm

My question to James has been, since 2010, and incessantly for years, how does one infinitesimal of affectance affect the next one?
The only answer I ever got was: it just does, because it is affectance.

James has given a name to existence, then took that name as a mathematical Constant, then juggled with some standard deviations, and figured peaks to be particles, because they stand out so manifestly in his graph.

Its absolute hogwash.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:31 pm

It is what jugglers do.
What does RM explain in the moment? Nothing, it can not explain a thing.

Whereas value ontology explains precisely what is happening, here and now in this thread;
different perspectives are unfolding their consequentiality so as to integrate each others consequences in their own terms.
Nietzsche called this will to power, Einstein called it Relativity, both describe it on different levels -
Value Ontology unfolds it as logic.

It applies to any identifiable unit of existence
- as the very notion of a unit of existence represents simply that - a perspective that manages to relate other perspectives to its consequences.

Logic is the basis of physics, it is not an emulation of an imaginary subset of physics.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:38 pm

Serendipper - I guarantee, am willing to bet a million dollars that James will refuse and/or fail to explain RM to the point of you being able to do your calculations and verify his claims. I guarantee that you will not be able to arrive at any verifiable scientific proposition.

I also guarantee that following through value ontology will allow you to arrive at many verifiable scientific propositions, but obviously this depends on your intelligence and will to do so, so I wont bet the million bucks on that.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:53 pm

A nice example of how RM is hollow is to have it explain movements in economy in terms of currencies or precious metals.
it can't. It couldn't possibly tell you why one metal is more valuable to humans than another, or how people organize actions around a currency.
It couldn't possibly discern criteria.
Because "affectance" is criterion-neutral.
Meaning that it describes the non-existence of existence.

Value, one other hand, applies as differentiation. Which is part of the reason it is the very basis of any axiom-setting; it allows us to discern real criteria.

RM literally has no tangible criteria. Nor has it tangible results.

Ive tried since 2010 to get James to make a single demonstrably relevant calculation, to have a single thing he says pertain directly to physics. It simply is not something he does.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:23 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Serendipper - I guarantee, am willing to bet a million dollars that James will refuse and/or fail to explain RM to the point of you being able to do your calculations and verify his claims. I guarantee that you will not be able to arrive at any verifiable scientific proposition.

Take him up on it, Serendipper. Jealousy makes for such deep hearted liars. They need punishment to regain perspective and respect for truthfulness.
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: 25562
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:57 pm

Lols.

Yeah, good times. "Reality is made of tiny worms, that just sort of clump up and form stuff. Why? Because reality is wormy!"

Eh.

Serendipper, you made two very nice insights: that if more energy is added to the photon then it slows down by converting into mass (a consequence of how I described c as minimal possible distance of oscillation), and the idea that the front of the wave impacts this saturation point while the rest of the wave compresses and forms the barrier.

Very nice.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby Mithus » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:26 pm

I would suggest to Fixed Cross to value himself a bit more. His desperate attempt to gain followers by putting others down is truly embarrassing. It tells more about him than about the people he attacks. And in this case it is more than ridiculous, even tragic, as he and his incapable friend were never able to grasp what James was talking about.
..... panta rhei .............................................
User avatar
Mithus
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Stephen C Pedersen » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:10 pm

Faust wrote:Was reading an article in the SEP and came upon this:

Ontology is the study of beings or their being — what is.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge — how we know.
Logic is the study of valid reasoning — how to reason.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong — how we should act.
Phenomenology is the study of our experience — how we experience.

Philosophers have sometimes argued that one of these fields is “first philosophy”, the most fundamental discipline, on which all philosophy or all knowledge or wisdom rests. Historically (it may be argued), Socrates and Plato put ethics first, then Aristotle put metaphysics or ontology first, then Descartes put epistemology first, then Russell put logic first, and then Husserl (in his later transcendental phase) put phenomenology first.

Which one would you put first?

Ontology and epistemology have a dialectic, which is why they are both subsumed under metaphysics. These two questions are related: What can we know, and what has true existence. Each dictates the other. I'm not certain you can separate them. I think you need to look at their conclusions and sit in the armchair and think it through and go through it again and again until you get a hunch of whichever two answers go together correctly. I think this may be looked as "The whole is more important than the parts." No?

The fate of science. Science assumes an objective reality called "matter". So a scientist sets up a system to discover it and Voila! I said that matter existed and now I have proved it! This is Hegel's criticism of the relation of the two questions.

I'm a common sense pragmatist of the Thomas Reid and William James Variety. William James might look at this problem and think, "What's in your best interest to assume first." Thomas Reid is very skeptical of ideal (idea) theories thinking common sense as an intuitional and foundational philosophy.
User avatar
Stephen C Pedersen
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:54 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Which is First?

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:59 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Cleary, all science is about describing the conditions of causality.

This is why I work wit logic, so as to see if I can produce these conditions from irreducible logical axioms.


Where/which are these axioms, though? And how are they axioms, i.e., self-evidently worthy?

You have affirmed that the term "self-valuing" is inadequate. I've been thinking in terms of Aristotle's noesis noeseos lately: axiosis axioseos, or perhaps axiosis tes autes axioseos--the valuing of valuing, or the valuing of the same valuing. I don't think this is just formally related to Aristotle's formula, either; I think, seemingly contrary to you, that valuing requires at least a rudimentary form of consciousness:

Fixed Cross wrote:[V]alue ontology explains precisely what is happening, here and now in this thread;
different perspectives are unfolding their consequentiality so as to integrate each others consequences in their own terms.
Nietzsche called this will to power, Einstein called it Relativity, both describe it on different levels -
Value Ontology unfolds it as logic.

It applies to any identifiable unit of existence
- as the very notion of a unit of existence represents simply that - a perspective that manages to relate other perspectives to its consequences.


This is very promising, but I'm still missing something. Precisely if the doctrine of the will to power is true--i.e., corresponds to reality--, the doctrine must itself be an act of the will to power--i.e., an imposition, a violation of reality--; it cannot be simply true.

You have compared "self-valuing" to Crowley's "Love under Will": beneath the surface of the will to power, within it, there must be a kind of love (eros?): the will to power cannot be blind will, but must include a representation, an idea, a vision of the "beloved", of the Other. In Value Ontology, the way I understand it, this idea is a projection of the Self, i.e., of the valuing that the "self-valuing" is. This implies a kind of self-reflection. Two puzzle pieces' fitting into each other explains nothing; the puzzle piece that is the "self-valuing" in question recognizes everything it comes across only insofar as it is or can be a fitting puzzle-piece for it, and strives to make it fit insofar as it is not. This then also applies to VO itself: it is the attempt by a "self-valuing", or multiple "self-valuings", to make everything that does, did, will, or could exist correspond to its metaphysics, or its logic.

Image
Image
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7177
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:10 pm

Void_X_Zero wrote:Serendipper, you made two very nice insights: that if more energy is added to the photon then it slows down by converting into mass (a consequence of how I described c as minimal possible distance of oscillation), and the idea that the front of the wave impacts this saturation point while the rest of the wave compresses and forms the barrier.

Very nice.

Thanks friend, but it was serendipity. This video gave me the idea that waves of light can compress:



The energy added in the separation of quarks producing more quarks in the other video helped me realize that energy goes directly into mass and mass cannot go the speed of light. It was a simple step from there to postulate that energy added to a photon will slow it down by producing mass and that has to be why c is what it is.

I'm not sure how frequency (wavelength) ties in, but it seems that energy added to gamma rays that would otherwise serve to increase frequency instead may transform into matter and thereby produce a maximum frequency as well as velocity of propagation.

The chart at 4:44 in the video below was insightful as well as the chart at 5:15 which seemed to indicate that "particles" may not be discrete in identity.



Maybe the electron is a photon with a bit more energy added and likewise on down the list. Could there be particles between the photon and neutrino and between the electron and neutrino? Could the list be continuous? If not, why not?

Another question that needs answering is what is the lowest frequency and why. 0.1Hz have been detected, but is there a lower bound? It's amazing to think about a 0.1Hz EM wave traveling at the speed of light. How close to 0 can it get? What happens at zero?

How does energy tie into force? If energy is used to produce a force, what is the frequency of that energy? Does it have a frequency? If not, then is EM radiation with a 0 frequency responsible for force? Could mass decay in the absolute lowest energy state of 0 Hz in the form of gravity? Would that explain why gravity is so weak?

Lots of questions remain.

The real beauty here is that if energy makes mass and mass decays back to energy then the universe can recycle itself seemingly forever. It's like a huge ecosystem. Then the question will be where the fundamental laws came from. Are there various energy fields with different properties and laws and we just happened to be in the universe that worked? If so, where did they come from? And where are they? Obviously, we could never prove such a thing.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:30 pm

S - No, it is rather that each perspective, formula, entity, behaves as a self valuing, (trying to integrate the rest in its terms) and that this is self-evident.

You seem to conflate the term with the logic. Ive expressed a need of a more intuitively fitting term for the logic.
The logic, the idea, the philosophy has been hermetically completed and sealed, perfected, the very instant I conceived of it.

If it hadn't been, it would obviously not be a logic.

I can't precisely tell from your post how much is still unclear to you. I know you generally think in relevant areas, but from my perspective as a VO-ist it always is you who is mystifying, putting terms like self and consciousness into the equation where they are entirely out of place in VO.



Naturally, a logic that defies the logic of object-subject grammar (the thing Nietzsche and Heidegger tried to resolve) can not be simply expressed in that same grammar. It needs to be grasped logically, purely, abstractly, as a method, a new conception of method, of logic - basically a purely active agent.

Existence is active - there is nothing that it enforces on itself that it isn't itself. Unless the opposite can be demonstrated, this is self-evident.


Reality is will to power. Does reality enforce itself on itself? Well, yes. But that doesn't make it an artifice or a mystification. I don't mystify reality if I shoot someone in the head. I just enact it. Even though that persons perspective is then gone, I haven't done anything artificial or mystical.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:36 pm

Valuing is not a form of consciousness. Consciousness is a form of valuing.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby UrGod » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:37 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Void_X_Zero wrote:Serendipper, you made two very nice insights: that if more energy is added to the photon then it slows down by converting into mass (a consequence of how I described c as minimal possible distance of oscillation), and the idea that the front of the wave impacts this saturation point while the rest of the wave compresses and forms the barrier.

Very nice.

Thanks friend, but it was serendipity. This video gave me the idea that waves of light can compress:


Noted. Your two names are too similar.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:39 pm

Void_X_Zero wrote:Valuing is not a form of consciousness. Consciousness is a form of valuing.

Yes. One that allows for extreme amounts of inaccuracy and uncertainty, thus for the experience of time, of periods between relatively fixed states where things are merely possible, not necessary - this is what consciousness is. The (apparent) absence of necessity.

Once consciousness amounts in a decision, it disappears. Like once it amounts in an orgasm.
Consciousness is what exists between a valuing and the sufficient resolution of that valuing. It is a suspended state, in which the law of self-valuing logic takes hold anew, as on a new near-void, a new chaos.

Ideas are entities inside consciousness.

Sometimes an idea actually pervades and penetrates consciousness, such as this idea of mine and Nietzsches - in which case it transforms the entire fabric of that consciousness, makes it less arbitrary, less free to err, more bound to its ground - true to the Earth. This is why almost everyone hates it. Fear of the Earth - justified fear.

The Earth has no democratic laws, no protection for the weak, no bias in favour of stupidity.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:53 pm

Sauwelios wrote:You have compared "self-valuing" to Crowley's "Love under Will": beneath the surface of the will to power, within it, there must be a kind of love (eros?): the will to power cannot be blind will, but must include a representation, an idea, a vision of the "beloved", of the Other. In Value Ontology, the way I understand it, this idea is a projection of the Self, i.e., of the valuing that the "self-valuing" is. This implies a kind of self-reflection. Two puzzle pieces' fitting into each other explains nothing; the puzzle piece that is the "self-valuing" in question recognizes everything it comes across only insofar as it is or can be a fitting puzzle-piece for it, and strives to make it fit insofar as it is not. This then also applies to VO itself: it is the attempt by a "self-valuing", or multiple "self-valuings", to make everything that does, did, will, or could exist correspond to its metaphysics, or its logic.

I recommend reading through my first definitions from 2011 and '12.
Ive of course explained it hundreds of times afterwards, but since it is a logic and not a creative fingerpainting class, it doesn't matter how many times I explain it, I am still explaining the exact same thing.

Fixed Cross wrote:0.




Value ontology is the interpretation of "being"/"the world" as composed of beings, subjects. It explains the structure of a subject as a mechanism whereby substance is assimilated in terms dictated by the nature of the subject. This assimilating is done by "valuing", that is, selecting. This selecting requires a standard, a ground value. This ground value is perpetually being set by and as a fundamental mechanism, that sustains itself by restricting its selection of its interactions with the outside to the type that sustains it.

Value ontology therefore refers to a logical circularity that is expressed in temporality as a circuitry tending to expand itself by integrating what it encounters while maintaining its integral structure.

The theory explains why what exists exists and persists through time, by making it evident that whatever does not have a "self-valuing" (such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.


[center]"Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself- he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself "man," that is, the valuator."
[/center]
[right](Zarathustra, of the Thousand and One Goals)[/right]

1.



Fundamental to mans consistent being-as-himself, is his activity of valuing in terms of himself. By this he assimilates material and grows as himself. How is a consistent valuing possible? The simple answer would be: by being a consistent subject. But this only create a a circular argument, and leaves open the question of how there can be a valuing, a being. How does a subject maintain its perspectival consistency, its structural integrity, whereby it values in terms of itself? To explain this we must posit a self-valuing, which is to say, a holding-oneself-as-value, whereby this “oneself” is nothing else than this consistent holding-as-value, in engaging the outer world. This consistency of a self-holding standard-value, is what amounts to being, the accumulation of more and more material to feed and sustain a structurally consistent growing, “a becoming”.

We are faced with the problem of identifying in technical, specific terms what this self-valuing is.  We may not be able to describe or define it in the terms we are used to, in which we like to acquire knowledge, the terms which are developed to describe the manifest in exact measurements. The collection of these terms and their proper logic, that of mathematics, is what we refer to as exact science.

Observing the manifest world in scientific terms, we use principles such as quantity, causality, energy-tranferring and interacting, motion, temporality. All these are enabled and interconnected by the laws of mathematics, which is the logic of objective equalies. It relies on given and exactly determined values, which can be defined in terms of each other. It is here that the philosophy of value ontology posits a break with the method of science. The philosopher is not satisfied with positing values as if they are unquestionably given, it is his task to investigate why, or more precisely, how they are given. Mathematics can not provide an answer to this, as such would go directly against the axioms of this science, which include always the word “if”. If "A" is given, then A is given as A. It does not posit that A is given - it is as if A can be anything - which is not the case. Possibilities are limited. Deepening of logical power occurs now that we have abstract terms for the possibility of existing.

The aim is to embed language into being, to absolve it of its abstracting, detaching compulsion. The means is to embed being into grammar.

The great philosophersof the modern age have attemped such positive statements in various ways, beginning with Descartes, who posited the certainty “I think therefore I am”, or, read properly in context, “I question that anything is, therefore I am”.  Nietzsche and others observed that this “I” who questions is not actually given as an exactly understandable unit. What is this “I” that is, and that questions that anything is, and that posits that he is because he questions that anything is? Descartes accomplished bringing himself the experiential certainty that there is such a thing as himself. He does not bring the certainty that anything else is, in fact he calls this somewhat into question, challenges the other to reveal itself at least to itself; he does not reveal what they are or why they can be said to exist; If the only ground for knowledge of what is is to cognate in the way Descartes was doing, then only thinkers can be known to exist, and only by themselves. Clearly this is not a useful definition of being. It is also not an exact application of logic, as it assumes the “I” both in "I think" and "I exist". The terms “I”, “exist” and “think” are not a mathematical terms: “I exist” can not mathematically be inferred from “I think”.

To draw certainty from Descartes logic, we must look at the meaning of the word “Am” in “I Am”. We must correctly observe the meaning of the verb “to be”.We must logically be satisfied with the given that what we call “being” by definition is in being (exists) - this is the only meaningful and correct way to employ the verb at all. The analytical certainty is “I am, therefore I am”. By this phrase, “I” is defined, namely, as that which, apparently, is said by itself to exist. What have we come to know by this? Nothing.

It is here that philosophy must break from science, from the pretense to be able to define the terms “I” and “exist” and “cognate” in terms of each other by exact inference. We must simply be honest, and admit that all three of these terms are simply understood by us, to mean precisely... what we understand by them! No further explication is necessary, no more exact explication is possible. The terms were called into being to describe exactly what we mean when we use the terms. They hold no deeper meaning than what they were invented to convey.

So to further philosophical understanding, that to which the terms “I” and “think” and “exist” were invented to convey must be explicated in more exacting terms. We can observe that these terms all three of them refer to the very same thing. “I”, “think” and “am” are all words indicating the same. This also includes the things to which other terms refer, such as “eat” or “walk”. As true as “I think, therefore I am” is, is also “I eat, therefore I am”. By disconnecting Descartes logic from his situation in which it emerged, we see that the “I” is posited as a condition of “think”, as much as “think” is a condition of “I”. Therefore, when I posit that “I eat”, I posit an “I” which, by common interpretation of grammar, means that I posit that (an) “I” exist(s).

We see that “I” simply means “existing” and that this existing can be expressed in the endless variety of verbs that may pertain to a posited I. That is all the I is; it allows a verb to make sense, to indicate an activity.

The I is thus always an activity.

In short, we relate activity to values, we act to express and obtain values, and these values allows us to continue acting. The values thus reflect a central value, the acting agent, the "I", who is by all acts bestowing value on himself and so creating his world, which is largely defined by the way he encounters it. If he encounters it consistently, he becomes master over it. If he encounters it according to the ways in which the world engages him, he becomes slave to it. In a normal being, there is a balance. Happiness in mastery increasing, unhappiness is responsiveness increasing. Depression is overloaded responsiveness. The only cure for depression is physical, physiological expression of anger and undergoing the consequences with a measure of of indifferent curiosity toward ones own psychology, so that one can begin discerning ones natural values and reject imposed, unnatural ones.

To exist, one must be able to value consistently, which means that the standard must be consistent. I act so to obtain a value, an object, a thing-and-goal. But if I do not structurally attain my goals, my self-valuing will suffer. So establishing the appropriate values is implicit in existing. Since all that I do is predicated and justified by a specific type of valuing, and since “I” can only be explicated in terms of what I do, the I is nothing besides this establishing-value-to-myself. This is what we seek to maintain or repair - the activity of structurally setting attainable values, the attainment of which will result in a capacity to attain higher values. This is how power increases, by structural value-setting. In man, this needs to be conscious, because those that do this consciously win, defeat others. Man is conscious being so his self-valuing needs to be conscious in order for his integrality, his structural integrity, his 'soul', to survive. His intellect needs consistency.

Ontologically, in all cases the value-establishing to the I leads to a continuation of its capacity to set values for itself, this type of valuing must be understood as a constant, a type of valuing that is itself a consistency, a standard of value -- which means that its consistency must be understood as an activity.

Consistency is the fundamental activity.

We can verify this in terms of the periodic table and at the same time we so verify the logic of this categorization that nature apparently produces on her own accord, by asking what makes for a consistency of an elements. We may consider the most consistent to be those which are least influenced by other elements or energies. The are the 'noble' elements. What make as an element noble is that it does not change internally in reaction to outward stimuli. It holds no potential for internal change, is never inconsistent with itself. It is universe enclosed in itself, all of its values are perfectly attainable, for ever.  Gold is this absolutely active; it holds in its structure the maximum amount activities, its many electron rings are filled, its inner tensions are all in play. Maximization of activity within a given structure amounts to a maximal consistency.

Contemplate the correspondence between consistency, activity, the noble elements, and value.





[Jakob Milikowski 2011/2012]

without-music wrote:
...(such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.

I find attractive the machinic -- I want to say "metaphor," but that term doesn't quite apply so neatly here -- image you invoke with regard to the valuing-subject. The subject is in-the-world, of course, and what is the world but a matrix of flows, intensities, lines, forces? How perfect, then, the mechanical vernacular. In the midst of a web of intensities, placed between two or more flows, the machine functions to connect, to interrupt, to re-direct, to modify, modulate, in a word: to affect the flows that simultaneously serve as its life-force, its nutrition, and as its excrement, its waste. This affect, always in-the-midst-of, always between. This affect is, of course, valuation, the subject-machine's valuing-capacity, tendency, function. Defined in terms of its capacity to value, that machine incapable of doing so breaks down, its flows overrun it -- it is eaten up by the world, it disintegrates.

And here I can't help but quote Deleuze & Guattari, for their words currently haunt me: "Everywhere it is machines -- real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections" (Anti-Oedipus, 1). This it is the world, the body of warring intensities and flows, a matrix of machinic chaos. Machines driving other machines: what a perfect image of the world as will-to-power (understood on the basis of self-will/value). The necessary couplings and connections are valuations. There can be no absence of valuation, for all life valuates -- where it is absent, there life is naught. Rather, only differing intensities, weaker and stronger capacities, active and reactive forces, noble and slavish wills. In supplementing "machine" for "subject," I believe the scope of value-ontology is significantly widened. Indeed, there has already been extensive work in this vein on this forum: society as valuing in terms of self, economy, politic, religion, and so on. Instead of using the subject that wills as a metaphor for what a thriving, flourishing empire does, I think a mechanistic, de-centered (de-subjected) vocabulary makes possible a more focused, less metaphoric, project. Note how Deleuze takes care to emphasize: real ones, not figurative ones, these machines. Not metaphor, but image. Not subject, but machine. The subject does of course come in to play along with consciousness, but such subjectivity is not a condition for the possibility of self-valuation; rather just the opposite. Which is to say that the self-valuing subject is not absolutely primary, it is not the most basic term of such a metaphysic, for not all valuation necessitates subjectivity. I propose, as a more foundational ontological unit, the machine. In any case, I put these thoughts forward with the hope that they will in turn spur more.

Thrasymachus wrote:
without-music wrote:
...(such a mechanism by which a standard is maintained that serves to keep this mechanism operative) can not maintain structural integrity, i.e. can not persist.

I find attractive the machinic -- I want to say "metaphor," but that term doesn't quite apply so neatly here -- image you invoke with regard to the valuing-subject. The subject is in-the-world, of course, and what is the world but a matrix of flows, intensities, lines, forces? How perfect, then, the mechanical vernacular. In the midst of a web of intensities, placed between two or more flows, the machine functions to connect, to interrupt, to re-direct, to modify, modulate, in a word: to affect the flows that simultaneously serve as its life-force, its nutrition, and as its excrement, its waste. This affect, always in-the-midst-of, always between. This affect is, of course, valuation, the subject-machine's valuing-capacity, tendency, function. Defined in terms of its capacity to value, that machine incapable of doing so breaks down, its flows overrun it -- it is eaten up by the world, it disintegrates.

And here I can't help but quote Deleuze & Guattari, for their words currently haunt me: "Everywhere it is machines -- real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections" (Anti-Oedipus, 1). This it is the world, the body of warring intensities and flows, a matrix of machinic chaos. Machines driving other machines: what a perfect image of the world as will-to-power (understood on the basis of self-will/value). The necessary couplings and connections are valuations. There can be no absence of valuation, for all life valuates -- where it is absent, there life is naught. Rather, only differing intensities, weaker and stronger capacities, active and reactive forces, noble and slavish wills. In supplementing "machine" for "subject," I believe the scope of value-ontology is significantly widened. Indeed, there has already been extensive work in this vein on this forum: society as valuing in terms of self, economy, politic, religion, and so on. Instead of using the subject that wills as a metaphor for what a thriving, flourishing empire does, I think a mechanistic, de-centered (de-subjected) vocabulary makes possible a more focused, less metaphoric, project. Note how Deleuze takes care to emphasize: real ones, not figurative ones, these machines. Not metaphor, but image. Not subject, but machine. The subject does of course come in to play along with consciousness, but such subjectivity is not a condition for the possibility of self-valuation; rather just the opposite. Which is to say that the self-valuing subject is not absolutely primary, it is not the most basic term of such a metaphysic, for not all valuation necessitates subjectivity. I propose, as a more foundational ontological unit, the machine. In any case, I put these thoughts forward with the hope that they will in turn spur more.


I would agree that D&G use wonderful terminology here and this must become a part of the overall schema which we employ. The conceptual precision they bring to the table must serve as a model for us. The reason I use machinic language as a supplement -- and not a substitute -- for valuing/subject language is that the object-centered, non-teleological empiricist causality (however "transcendental") which "runs" D&G-like machines is in itself insufficient as an ontological or phenomenological principle. It tends to obfuscate certain essential elements, tends to enfame these within a confining and imposed model and possibility simply because of the nature of the language employed (it may cause "horizons to withdraw", albeit in a far "better" and more accurate/useful way than almost any other philosophical conceptual systems).  

I also like valuing-subject oriented langauge because it is both precise but also imprecise, broad enough with respect to our connotations and habitually-used meanings that it can serve to identify a whole host of various sort of beings and possibilities, and it leaves the horizon wide open rather than closing it up within itself. Not that D&G overtly fall prey to such a closure, but the machinic language itself can tend to act as such a self-enclosing, an "enframing" system (to invoke Heidegger a bit here on technology, and of course language is a technology) that can co-opt possible meanings and contents before they find a chance to otherwise emerge more naturally, carefully and quietly, after-the-fact and without regard to prior mandates inherent to and often embedded invisibly and indivisibly within form/s-as-structure/structuring possibilities.

D&G's language in Capitalism and Schizophrenia is very useful and indeed has been a large inspiration for me. I view D&G's conceptual terminologies as models, languistic and highly useful tools to be employed, but tools ultimately subject in their usefulness and accuracy to an appeal to a broader, quieter and often as-of-yet imprecise/vague framework and possibility than these tools alone are able to capture. To approach this most sufficient frame and possibility of being we need to "impregnate" the machine with that "part" (necessity) of the machine which "speaks a different, non-object-oriented language", which escapes the confines of boundaries and possibility for delimitation under the current systems. We must have an account of a machine which allows for the je ne sais quoi of that machine itself. D&G make good efforts in this direction, but I also see value ontology as essential here. I see valuing/subject(-ive) language and appeal as setting object-ification within what is most necessary and sufficient for it, the valuing/s goings-on (however relatively centered or de-centered as the case may be) that give rise to objects (machines, images) and to object-relations (machinic processes and functions, flows/etc), that aim to identify and carefully trace the myriad intricate and often convoluted, barely articulable interpretations at the heart of all being/s. (In otherwords I do not think we need abandon the metaphor, not at all, indeed we need to rescue it, re-value it). I think value ontology, as a supplement to D&G-like machinic assemblages, helps to keep being open before itself and to ensure that what does arise does not do so prematurely, inadequately or as the result of prior unseen assumptions.

"To speak without speaking (falsely)"... such possibilities more afforded through the poetic or aesthetic experience become necessary methods if our ontological approach is to avoid falling prey to an objectivist-empiricist reduction. I worry that machinic language in itself or as a/the conceptual basis/ground flirts with this sort of reduction.

Fixed Cross wrote:Indeed, the core of the self-valuing entity can only be described, objectified, as a machine. It does what it does because of an inevitability that we may deduce from being, our own being and whatever this implies.. We may deduce it from what we know, the full extent and depth of it. We can not indicate anything that exists without seeing how it must hold itself as a standard with the aid of what we perceive as some mysterious force or quality. Gravity, strong force, the facts of nature we can not penetrate into by isolating the things they pertain to from us, these are expressions of what we can understand when we take ourselves as a model for such machinery.

This is where the distinction between subject and machine dissolves. A subject is a machine. We are conscious, yes -- Parodites is making vast strides in describing what this particular form of self-valuing/machinery is, how it stands apart, what it produces, what we may attain with it, and what we may/can/must value in it., as ourselves. I have identified the other way end of the scale -- but the mechanism, the machine is still the same. We perish if we do not function as such a machine. Therefore, as vast and interesting and even crucial to know in order to aim for our ends the difference between the subject and the atomic machine is, they are still. under the definition of value ontology, identical at their basic machinery.

So, in line with what Capable says, We must affirm a more object-based descriptiveness within value ontology, and refer to what now stands in Production under "naive valuation" -- the concept of valency. This derivative of the concept "(to) value" stands precisely between the valuing "subject" (self-valuing/self-sustaining standard) and that what it values, "the world", the other, the object. It is in this medium of the universe, the true "ether", entirely a matter of possibility and correspondence,, where "all is properties and situations", that we may identify the machine-like infrastructure, the circuitry of the machine.

We can not penetrate deeper into the core of self-valuing than by knowing comprehensively our own self-valuing. This is the phenomenal/phenomenological task before us, and this is the perspective that I hold in regard to a new ethics. Very elementarily, we take our organism as the axiom from which to penetrate into the logic of the atom. In this, the subjective, including what we refer to as consciousness, stands logically prior to the things from which it is seen/interpreted to emerge/be constructed. So the study of phenomenology and ontology now must be a study of psychology, but not the categorizing kind, rather a new direction (of which the 21st century has seen preludes) -- something we may call experientology. The categorizing not of "effect" of "substances" but of modes of being, as recognized and categorized by beings as resulting from a certain "brew of passions" which is enabled by a certain valency-structure. This is and has always been the study of economics and politics, the true social sciences, working mass-psychology. We have just found its proper terminology, the scientific language for the subjective -- the means to objectify subjects into machines without devaluating them.

There remains the fundamental difference between a machinic object (a car, etc) and a machinic subject (a self-valuing). We may however understand now why we create machines around us, and why they so easily fit our valuing system. Our cosmos is host to and product of a machinal structure. At the core of all machinery is (identified from a human perspective) this machinal inevitability that is also at the ground of evolution - a mechanism that only in retrospect appears as logic. From its own perspective this mechanism can not be exhaustively conceptualized, but we must, as Capable notes leave room for the undefined of the machine, that makes it so distant from an automobile which only functions by knowing exactly what it does -- the quality of the machine that makes it not a tool, but a tool-wielding, interpreting all machines as its own functions. We can only approach and delineate this. What we can define is that which approaches and delineates it -- valency.

In order to articulate the categorical science of valencies, our area for objectification, it is useful and necessary to understand the subject and its non-conscious counterparts in terms of the machinal. But at the same time we have an overlap, a twilight zone between the visible / technical and that 'je ne sais quoi', the area where valency becomes value, where our approach is suddenly reversed mid-course without changing direction of its course inward -- the realest and most bewildering revaluation of values -- the moment where the machinal, first approached as the most precise, as we touch on its core appears entirely imprecise. This is the moment where "the severest self-legislation" is required, which means not only to set laws for oneself, but to set oneself as a law. Science has not been supported by ego's strong enough to attempt this - it has so far been the domain of the Camelof Zarathustra's metamorphoses of the spirit.

With the introduction of value ontology into science, there is an "I will" required. Science must deliberately impose itself on its subject matter, in order that its subject matter does not impose itself any further on him. The "I am" of science is still very far away, we stand at the beginning of penetrating into the machinal, the "machinery of the universe", by introducing ourself into its vital functions.

For this to become viable, tenable, this "self" has to be elaborated and even 'celebrated' like never before. The perspective, for every ontic machine is a perspective, every perspective is a machine, must be the new 'atom' of a new science. This will require an entirely new scientific caste -- to which end we can only begin to inspire new students, seedling-thinkers. To this end the language of the machinal could be employed effectively -- to draw out, "lure" rigorous, scientific minds into a realm of self-knowing by allowing the notion of self-valuing to express itself in the language of the machinal. We should appeal to the hardest, toughest and proudest with our project, for it carries the potency to bend the strongest steel, to shape everything around its dynamic core.

To make circles out of straight lines. value ontology does for logic what the notion that the Earth is spherical did for mans awareness of himself in relation to the cosmos. It places the limits of the subject (of logic) within itself, and describes the mechanism/cosmos wherein it exists in terms of the consequences of this centering. So as "gravity" first became the core from which effective physics emerged, so "valuing" becomes the core from which an effective thinking can emerge.


I think, S, that the part that you re missing, is conviction, completeness of will; only from absolute and total engagement of the will can we derive abstract principles that apply under all conditions. All conditions that include ones existence, that is. Existence is indeed a criterium for deciding what existence is. I would not agree that that is mystification.

Yes, self-valuing obviously describes itself, and the one who practices it, and the ones refusing it, and this very war - it is really the war between what I see as corrupted beings and what I see as beings of integrities, that I have initiated in this field - as I have been the first to introduce the logic of integrity.

Or let me call it Jakob Milikowski's first law: the logic of integrity.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:13 pm

Void -
What I say about consciousness being basically a postponement of value-attainment (due to whatever causes), describes succinctly the condition Parodites explicates and unfolds ( into which I won't go too deeply here in public, not throwing too many pearls out here, especially another philosophers ) as occurring due to the atrophying of instincts - namely, the failure of instincts to be directly, "blindly" functional - the failure to behave what we would now call unconsciously, automatically - and becoming things unto themselves and each other, rather than to merely a propagation of the meta-environment, the body.

The instincts became tracts of chemical-electric activity that just began to thrust into each other, work on each other, creating a whole realm of being between the generation of the valuing and its resolution - in fact virtually eliminating the possibility of complete resolution from the equation - only where consciousness bends toward animality and reproduction does the delay decrease and does the organism lose breadth of consciousness, "space for reflection" - does it becomes itself qua organism. In between these moments there is consciousness, which all people except philosophers know as a tremendous burden.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:26 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Serendipper wrote:The speed of light is determined by something that has nothing to do with light: causality.


Funny. The idea that causality has nothing to do with light. That there is anything that causality's nothing to do with.

Granted there is a degree of ambiguity in my statement, but you know what I meant. It seems to me (and others here) that you're grasping at anything you can in order to hinder progress and, like the Higgs field endowing mass to slow particles, you are striving to be the viscous goo obfuscating insight. Why do you want to be like that?

This is why I work wit logic, so as to see if I can produce these conditions from irreducible logical axioms.

I fail to see the logic in your argument if semantics underpins your objection.

RM doesn't work because it has the end product of its calculations fulfill the required condition of the beginning steps.

The sharp shooter fallacy?

What causes a unit of affectance to affect another unit? "It simply does because in RM existence is called affectance" is the official answer.

You can't see the forest for the trees. If he is wrong, help him. If you can't, then you are no better. All you do is destroy; not contribute.

But the real answer is that statistical infinitesimals aren't realities.

Yeah but the Higgs field is and it's clear there is some field of energy out there even if the Higgs model doesn't capture it. The way I see it, affectance is just another perspective on the field theories. Let's put our heads together instead of butting them.

My question to James has been, since 2010, and incessantly for years, how does one infinitesimal of affectance affect the next one?
The only answer I ever got was: it just does, because it is affectance.

2010? You signed up here in 11. Anyway, that's a long time for you to not also find a solution. At least James has done something and put together videos as well.

James has given a name to existence, then took that name as a mathematical Constant, then juggled with some standard deviations, and figured peaks to be particles, because they stand out so manifestly in his graph.

Well, the peaks are particles because matter is a concentration of energy. What's the problem? Nomenclature?

Whereas value ontology explains precisely what is happening, here and now in this thread;
different perspectives are unfolding their consequentiality so as to integrate each others consequences in their own terms.

Different perspectives unfold their consequences? What does that mean? Integrate each others consequences with respect to our own terms? Are you sure you're not stringing together vague words in an effort to baffle with bs?

If you can't explain it simply, then you do not understand it well enough.

- as the very notion of a unit of existence represents simply that - a perspective that manages to relate other perspectives to its consequences.

So a unit of existence is my perspective in relation to your perspective? So if we each have consequent misunderstandings, then reality will be deformed. Makes no sense. Reality does not hinge on our interpretation of it for the simple fact that we live in the past relative to reality. So our perspective is inconsequential.

Serendipper - I guarantee, am willing to bet a million dollars that James will refuse and/or fail to explain RM to the point of you being able to do your calculations and verify his claims. I guarantee that you will not be able to arrive at any verifiable scientific proposition.

So what if he can't explain? The objective is to find an explanation.

I also guarantee that following through value ontology will allow you to arrive at many verifiable scientific propositions, but obviously this depends on your intelligence and will to do so, so I wont bet the million bucks on that.

Unfortunately, you can't explain your theory simply enough for anyone to get their head around it. It does no good to be smart if you can no longer communicate. The smartest person is the one who can get the idea in his head into another's head as efficiently as possible.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:29 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Serendipper wrote:The speed of light is determined by something that has nothing to do with light: causality.


Funny. The idea that causality has nothing to do with light. That there is anything that causality's nothing to do with.

Granted there is a degree of ambiguity in my statement, but you know what I meant. It seems to me (and others here) that you're grasping at anything you can in order to hinder progress and, like the Higgs field endowing mass to slow particles, you are striving to be the viscous goo obfuscating insight. Why do you want to be like that?

This is why I work wit logic, so as to see if I can produce these conditions from irreducible logical axioms.

I fail to see the logic in your argument if semantics underpins your objection.

RM doesn't work because it has the end product of its calculations fulfill the required condition of the beginning steps.

The sharp shooter fallacy?

What causes a unit of affectance to affect another unit? "It simply does because in RM existence is called affectance" is the official answer.

You can't see the forest for the trees. If he is wrong, help him. If you can't, then you are no better. All you do is destroy; not contribute.

But the real answer is that statistical infinitesimals aren't realities.

Yeah but the Higgs field is and it's clear there is some field of energy out there even if the Higgs model doesn't capture it. The way I see it, affectance is just another perspective on the field theories. Let's put our heads together instead of butting them.

My question to James has been, since 2010, and incessantly for years, how does one infinitesimal of affectance affect the next one?
The only answer I ever got was: it just does, because it is affectance.

2010? You signed up here in 11. Anyway, that's a long time for you to not also find a solution. At least James has done something and put together videos as well.

James has given a name to existence, then took that name as a mathematical Constant, then juggled with some standard deviations, and figured peaks to be particles, because they stand out so manifestly in his graph.

Well, the peaks are particles because matter is a concentration of energy. What's the problem? Nomenclature?

Whereas value ontology explains precisely what is happening, here and now in this thread;
different perspectives are unfolding their consequentiality so as to integrate each others consequences in their own terms.

Different perspectives unfold their consequences? What does that mean? Integrate each others consequences with respect to our own terms? Are you sure you're not stringing together vague words in an effort to baffle with bs?

If you can't explain it simply, then you do not understand it well enough.

- as the very notion of a unit of existence represents simply that - a perspective that manages to relate other perspectives to its consequences.

So a unit of existence is my perspective in relation to your perspective? So if we each have consequent misunderstandings, then reality will be deformed. Makes no sense. Reality does not hinge on our interpretation of it for the simple fact that we live in the past relative to reality. So our perspective is inconsequential.

Serendipper - I guarantee, am willing to bet a million dollars that James will refuse and/or fail to explain RM to the point of you being able to do your calculations and verify his claims. I guarantee that you will not be able to arrive at any verifiable scientific proposition.

So what if he can't explain? The objective is to find an explanation.

I also guarantee that following through value ontology will allow you to arrive at many verifiable scientific propositions, but obviously this depends on your intelligence and will to do so, so I wont bet the million bucks on that.

Unfortunately, you can't explain your theory simply enough for anyone to get their head around it. It does no good to be smart if you can no longer communicate. The smartest person is the one who can get the idea in his head into another's head as efficiently as possible.

You seem to write well enough, but not be able to read. So your writing is basically random nonsense, like that admitted "ambiguous" formulation of course, which is simply radical stupidity.

"It has nothing to do with light, but with causality. Just watch this video."

A very concentrated heap of dung, sir.

Take care.

(PS - read back 6 years the discussions between me and James. See how I have helped him adapt his theory to Relativity and to my own theory, and see how he still fails to make sense with it --- obviously you don't want to take the bet, as you can't see the sense in his theory either - but I know he is the more fashionable one.)
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Serendipper » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:34 pm

Void_X_Zero wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Void_X_Zero wrote:Serendipper, you made two very nice insights: that if more energy is added to the photon then it slows down by converting into mass (a consequence of how I described c as minimal possible distance of oscillation), and the idea that the front of the wave impacts this saturation point while the rest of the wave compresses and forms the barrier.

Very nice.

Thanks friend, but it was serendipity. This video gave me the idea that waves of light can compress:


Noted. Your two names are too similar.

No, I meant the definition of serendipity - it means I stumbled on it by chance. That's what my name means... I stumble upon things by chance or good fortune. Like it was good fortune stumbling in here and meeting you guys. It's a reminder of humility.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]