Reality - Version 0.1

Well sorry, from from that I can’t tell if you understood or not. Let me see if I can remember enough BASIC to convey the idea (always comes down to the basics - Clarify, Verify,…).

DIM AryP(1000000) as double ; PtA level for each afflate
DIM Arydx(1000000) as double ;dx component of vector
DIM Arydy(1000000) as double ;dy
DIM Arydz(1000000) as double ;dz
;
DIM Ary1dx(1000000) as double ;dx1 current location of each afflate
DIM Ary1dy(1000000) as double ;dy1
DIM Ary1dz(1000000) as double ;dz1
;
DIM Ary2dx(1000000) as double ;dx2 next location of each afflate
DIM Ary2dy(1000000) as double ;dy2
DIM Ary2dz(1000000) as double ;dz2

;
; initialize random PtA levels for all afflates to be between -1 and +1
;
For n = 1 to 1000000
_AryP(n) = (RND() - 0.5) * 2
next n
;
; Initialize original array of 1000000 afflates with their vector components normalized to v = 1
;
For n = 1 to 1000000
_Aryx(n) = int(RND()) - 0.5
_Aryy(n) = int(RND()) - 0.5
_k = RND() - 0.5: If k > 0.5 then k = 1 else k = -1 ; acquire random +/- 1
_Aryz(n) = (1 - (Aryx(n)^2 + Aryy(n)^2))^0.5 * k ; normalize so that velocity = 1
next n
;
; Initialize first array
;
For i = 1 to 1000000
_Ary1x(i) = Aryx(i)
_Ary1y(i) = Aryy(i)
_Ary1z(i) = Aryz(i)
next i
;
; Begin sequencing through time
;
For t= 1 to 10,000,000 ; number of tics to watch
;
; Calculate next tic array1-to-array2 situation
;
_ For n = 1 to 1000000
__Ary2x(n) = Ary1x(n) + Aryx(n)
__Ary2y(n) = Ary1y(n) + Aryy(n)
__Ary2z(n) = Ary1z(n) + Aryz(n)
_next n
;
Test and Correct for Boundaries
Display array2
;
;
; Calculate next tic array2-to-array1 situation
;
_ For n = 1 to 1000000
__Ary1x(n) = Ary2x(n) + Aryx(n)
__Ary1y(n) = Ary2y(n) + Aryy(n)
__Ary1z(n) = Ary2z(n) + Aryz(n)
_next n
;
Test and Correct for Boundaries
Display array1
;
next t ; go through all 10,000,000 tics displaying array 1 then array 2 back and forth

The end result of that should appear something like:

capisci?

James

Yes, I am certain that I understand you. Your code is fundamentally representing the same idea I put in my last post. We are writing the same thing two different ways. I think it is important for the each of us to understand the other, wouldn’t you agree?

I tell you what I will do next . . . I will find the middle ground between your last post and my last post, then I will write an example with comments that you should be able to understand. I will also use BASIC to illustrate(always comes down to the basics - Clarify, Verify,…). Your BASIC is quite understandable.

I believe a little patience is required here on both our parts. I only require the answers to the following questions:

1 ► I think it is important for the each of us to understand the other, wouldn’t you agree?

2 ► Do you understand the programming constructs procedures and functions? They are similar.

3 ► Do you agree that patience is also required? Patience and Clarify, Verify,…

Don’t panic - the clearer we communicate the less time we will spend being unnecessarily patient.

You are asking a rock to please have patience. No need for such extreme, extreme, consideration. A little is fine. Don’t get carried away. And in my case, simply get on with it, assuming that I am NOT judging, but merely trying to make progress when it is available to be made (although the sooner the better. I am not going to live forever).

James

OK, that answers my questions in a nutshell.

First of all - I can cut the amount of arrays you have from ten down to two. I can do this because an array is just a base address(pointing to a location in memory) and the amount of required offsets(other memory locations that are relative to the base address). Between each offset I can define as much memory as I want to use as long as it remains uniform between all offsets. That aside I can create a defined uniform structure between each offset to hold all of our variables.

Structure BothArrays ; using double precision(represented by the .d after each variable) PtA.d x.d y.d z.d EndStructure
And because each array is fundamentally the same we can use the same structure. Oh and yes it is easy to replicate your empty space.

Yeah, the whole module-coding thing is fine. What matters is only that you understand the fundamental intent. I suspect that you are going to have to change a little what you have so far, but that’s fine. Do what works in your language.

Nothing counts until you display an actual product (unassociated to whatever code you were using).

We are discussing (for those perhaps unaware) one particular model of reality, an “ontology”, being emulated by a computer so as to verify its veracity. A great many people propose possible models of reality (such as FC and Eugene). But now we are talking about “rubber meets the road” analysis. Does this RM:Affectance Ontology actually represent anything real or significant? I personally know that answer, but we are about to find out if someone else can.

James

I have no intention of getting side tracked on particulars.

Yes, I figured the whole module-coding thing would make the emulator much easier to understand under the hood. As far as PtA is concerned I am certain that I have demonstrated in the earlier examples that I fully grasp what it does now - in other words - it takes on the potential to affect and passes on the potential to affect.

What I have been trying to achieve the last couple of days is to transition from the philosophy to the physics and code. You have been a little difficult to work with but that is your personality and I am fine with that - I like you and I like your philosophy so I will keep working at this - displaying empty space is the easy part - understanding PtA is fundamental - the rules of engagement are the all important things that are going to bring everything together.

We could do this in any language - I get that. Displaying empty space is very easy. An actual product is only going to show that my code works from my point of view.

I know what we are discussing. I have seen many models of reality. The idea of what we are doing is to get “rubber meets the road”. I have put a lot of time and thought into RM:AO because I personally have a feeling about the answer already - if I had to hazard a guess I would say what you know and what I am guessing are one and the same. Well I can do this easily - the code part is the easy part.

We are going from philosophy to emulator. The road from point A to point B only has a limited amount of short cuts.

Well let me know the particulars and maybe I can adjust some of that.

James

That is nice of you to offer James, but I think you are fine the way you are. I really appreciate you helping me out with the PtA thing. I am going over everything now and considering rules of engagement for the affectance bits - I think these are called afflates from memory. I am going to start by looking at density.

I am going to be posting some stuff to myself that includes code, philosophy and numbers - I just wanted to let you know in advance. I will address these particular posts to myself and the posts to you will be marked as such - they will likely be requests for verification’s and a question here and there.

Arcturus Descending

I think that what it means to exist, is to have objective reality, to occur, to be affected by the surrounding existence and to affect the surrounding existence.

There will never be any such thing as a perfect ideal world, however it is a concept that can be a great tool when considering these things, providing the parties involved know how to use it. Even dead bodies exist, so non-existence remains a shallow concept.

By existence, I mean everything. It is surprising how much of it we can see objectively - it is enough for us to be able to guess with a highly probable degree of accuracy, what else may lay beyond our metaphorical reach.

We will never have all of the facts - not while things keep changing - when things stop changing, what need will we have of all the facts? We do not need all of the facts to see much of existence objectively, we just need the right facts - the facts that are relevant to us.

We may see with different eyes, and we may not truly know each others experiences, but we do know how to measure frequencies, and we understand a lot about energy and matter, and these objective facts can be verified over and over again by different people to get the same results. When objective results are different from what we know then either something has changed or we have made an error.

I am glad that we somewhat agree that part of what it means to exist is to be affected by the surrounding existence and to affect the surrounding existence. I have always figured that there is meaning that exists between the question and the answer. That the answer is waiting to be found so therefore the answer comes before the question. We are so used to the confinement of the answer coming after the question that we make the dangerous assumption that we cause the answers.

We do not really invent - we just configure.

encode_decode wrote:

On second thought, there are moments which might appear to be seen as perfect moments.
For those who experience them, they are indeed perfect moments. Perfect doesn’t necessarily have to mean enduring or infinite…though these moments can linger on in memory for the longest time - just as the light of a star may be seen as lingering as it comes to us, even though we know that for some of these stars - existence has concluded.
But where does the light from these stars go once they have dimmed forever? What happens to it? Is it somewhere in the ether?

Makes sense to me.

Only surprising? Are there any more words which you can apply to the above? :evilfun:
Like for instance, Stupendous? :mrgreen:

But is that actually the way the scientist feels? That it is enough to be able to guess?
I suppose not. But I know what you mean. I suppose that one can say For Now.
Why do you use the word metaphorical here?

I’m not sure what you mean by when things stop changing. Do you mean when the Earth and ourselves have been annihilated?

I suppose that I understand what you are saying as to the first. You did say much - you didn’t say all. But in a way, do you think that we need all of the facts when it pertains to seeing certain things of reality objectively?
Maybe that question didn’t make sense.

But by the process of sharing and trust, we can learn to see with the same eyes, no?
We may not be able to fully experience what others have experienced (through empathy) but we can understand them better - what has made them who they are and why they believe as they do about certain things which we are not capable of believing. True?

Isn’t that wonderful too? And isn’t it wonderful that scientists are willing to admit their errors? But perhaps not all scientists.

Somewhat agree? What part of that do you not agree with? :stuck_out_tongue:
I’m actually asking a question here.

Can you explain what you mean by that?
Unless all you mean is that because we are curious about things, wonder about things, these are necessarily the things which will give our lives meaning.

Why is it that there is, at times, more meaning derived from those things which we cannot understand? The things of mystery? I suppose that the answer to that is within my very question. How obtuse of me.

Hmmm…I don’t quite grasp the logic here or might I say the order of things.
How can the answer come before the question?
Or perhaps you mean something different when you say answer.
Or perhaps you were just waxing poetic.
I sometimes say that things are waiting in the wings but still ~~ what comes first ~ the question or the answer?
The only thing which I might add is that the answers of some or some answers will lead us into questioning more - but that is not based on what you meant, I don’t think.

One of my favorite quotes ever by Rilke ~~~

Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”

Ah! Isn’t that beautiful. So profound. This is basically the way I experience it too or at least this is the way in which I am trying to live my questions.

Can you be speaking of pre-determinism here?
I have a problem with this because it seems to take free will or choices out of our hands. It also takes responsibility for our actions and behavior out of our hands.
If everything has already been determined. we are fated.
This way of thinking can also be dangerous.

Are you saying that this is true for you or are you saying that the above is erroneous thinking? I can’t tell.

Just because there seems to be so much Intelligent Design doesn’t mean that the so-called Designer designed everything, was the architect for everything.
Why is it that we are not capable of seeing many things as being random?
That is not to say that if we act in a certain way, certain actions may and will occur.

Does everything have to be according to plan?
Why have we been created if we are to be nothing but puppets on a marionettist’s stage?

As Patrick Henry said – “Give me liberty or give me death”. lol
Also, down with eternal reoccurrence!

I wonder if I would still wish to exist if I knew both were the reality.
But I do not believe in either. Why - because my choice is not too.

Okay I’ve gone far off the mark here.
The Solar Eclipse was beautiful to see. Perhaps I was inspired. lol

Arcturus Descending

Perfect moments only exist in metaspace as concepts, along with geometry and any other conceivable intellectual contraption we can come up with that represents perfect, even then the problems with proving such perfect concepts are quite beyond our reach as human beings. I think when you use the words “perfect moments” you are being less absolute than I. Your idea of “perfect moments” is more poetic and less absolute, more romantic and less realistic, more emotional and less logical - there is nothing really wrong with what you are saying in my eyes - I too find the arts to be valuable. We are expressing two very different ideas of perfect is all.

The light from the stars does not disappear - wherever did you get that idea? It is always somewhere out there - changing forms - manifesting from the most fundamental substance and returning to the most fundamental substance when circumstances permit. Only the form of the star can conclude its existence - what the star is made of can never come to a conclusion.

Through sharing, any information can be passed around - even that which is false - you need more than hearsay to trust what anyone tells you is a fact.

I would prefer to say that it is wonderful when a scientist is willing to admit his or her error. Not all scientist admit their errors as you say.

I am aware that you are asking a question - I think it might have been you that disagreed with me first if my memory serves me well. I can not answer this question.
My apologies for that . . .

On the topic of questions and answers - what use is there to ask a question if there is no answer to be found? When you go looking for your keys the answer is there before the question “Now where did I put my keys?” otherwise your keys simply do not exist - the answer by the way is “Oh . . . there are my keys.”

I have no idea what on earth are you talking about here - again my apologies for that. Language has become quite the chasm these days - as I like to point out often.

I am by no means here to preach to anyone - I present what I present and others choose what to believe. That is as fair as it gets.

To debate someone is to admit some interest in what they are saying and lending possibility to what they are saying as potential truth - all else is useless opinion.

Certainty

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”.

An unchanging situation cannot exist in physical space.

One thing we can say with certainty is that we exist.

To exist is to be affected by the surrounding existence and to affect the surrounding existence.
What it is that we are a part of, surrounds us and also exists.
. . . “We are inseparable from that which surrounds us” . . .

1 ► The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is . . .
2 ► It is a certainty that we exist.
3 ► To exist is to be affected by the surrounding existence and to affect the surrounding existence.
4 ► What it is that we are a part of, surrounds us and also exists . . .

I believe that to say that we can be separate from that which surrounds us is yet another shallow concept.

Infinite homogeneity cannot exist - each point in space has the potential to affect - anything without physical affect cannot physically exist.

Metaspace and Metacosm
[size=85]Mostly written by James S Saint.[/size]

The word “Metaspace” refers to the conceptual space, usually Euclidean space. Metacosm ≡ A manifestation of God.

God, and all “angels” are concepts that “exist in” the “Divine” or “Conceptual Realm” of ideas, concepts, and/or principles that govern physical behavior.

Euclidean space is an ontological choice that can be chosen differently, such as Minkowski’s space or Einstein’s “spacetime”. Each of those are metaspace concepts.

The triangle, circle, and square are also a part of that Divine or Conceptual Realm of “perfect” entities. So for me, the “Metaspace” is virtually the same thing as the Conceptual Realm within which God reigns with principle or fundamental affect. The Metaspace is the very concept of 3D space, not the physical space itself (which only exists due to the infinite amount of affectance). In a sense, affectance causes physical space.

God is the most fundamental, underlying principle causing the physical universe to exist, aka “First/Prime Cause”. And since God is an eternal entity (conceptual realm) and a cause, what is being caused must also be eternal, the physical universe.

The “Prime Principle” governing affect is simply, “Nothing can be what it isn’t” (Aristotle - “Dialectic”, aka “Logic”), “It is what it is” (Hebrew), “I am that which is” (Moses), or the ever popular, “I Am that I Am” (modern interpretation of Torah and the OT).

In reference to God, there is the general behavior or principle called “God” and there is the actual concurrent situation called “God”. The concurrent situation throughout the entire universe is always enacting the general principle called “God”. Therefore that general principle must physically exist at all times and in all locations throughout the entire universe. That conclusion can’t be rationally avoided.

There are times when a concept or an abstract principle is being physically enacted. During those times, the meta-concept and the physically real unite. God is one example of the union of the physical reality of God and the meta-concept of God. The Conceptual/Divine Realm, though a separate category, is not entirely exclusive of physical objects.

The entire physical universe is made of nothing but the fundamental affect, affect-upon-affect, aka an infinite field of “Affectance”.

The “fundamental affect” is “affect-upon-affect”, the fundamental substance of the entire physical universe, an affect being altered by another affect. And it is governed by a Prime Principle which requires that no affect can ever be instantaneous or take zero amount of time (which is the result of infinity (as infA or H) always being less than infinity² (infA² or H²). Time, being defined as the measure of relative change (in this case, relative to other affecting). Affecting (aka “light in a vacuum”) propagates at a particular speed because it can do no other (“Let there be light” - “propagation of affect”).

Both RM and separately AO are “Seraphim” relating to “GOD”.

That which is being enacted in physical space is the metacosm . . .

Arcturus Descending

It remains only surprising to me how much of reality we can see objectively - I think there is a whole lot more we can discover. We are only at the beginning of our journey as a species - lets hope it does not come to an end as quick as it started. I think people really need to face up to the fact that the only way forward from here, is to come back down out of the clouds, and return to reality where all the hard work is done - there are mistakes that we desperately need to fix.

I don’t care how any scientist feels - I really don’t - I only care about the person behind the title scientist. There is nothing wrong with guessing - what do you think an hypothesis is? Heuristics is a game of best guesses - probability et cetera. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that best guesses have brought the human species all the way out of the darkness into the new age starting a few millennia ago. There is an impending doom of the shadow of darkness hovering right over our heads now - in the form of bad science and much complacency in the worlds societies.

Things do not stop changing - if I said anything of the sort - it would have been a mental device used as a benchmark for comparison. What use will we need of any fact if there is no change? A fact in itself is a benchmark - nothing more and nothing less. Pythagoras demonstrated with a triangle that you do not need all of the facts to arrive at a conclusion that is close enough to perfect for our purposes.

Hmm . . . I think it is you who is waxing poetic and not I . . . it appears that you are confusing yourself. I have demonstrated already how the answers come before the questions and what happens when they don’t. Yes, there is an order of things - how could there not be? Imagine no order for your mind or body - sounds catastrophic to me - or perhaps you mean something different. Certainly some answers lead to asking more questions, I can not deny that. Meaning derived from things that we do not understand is a complex topic that I illustrate in other threads - simply put - your conscious awareness is not doing the processing.

I love patience . . . I think Rilke is being poetic here - he is pointing at the truth of things - just in an alternative way to science.

Pre-determinism sounds like rubbish from what I can discern - but beware - free will for the most part is an illusion too. Do we have free will? Yes, some. We are affected by that around us and we in turn affect it - nowhere do I speak of fate.

Random as the layman thinks about it is complete nonsense. I am not going to be discussing the differences between what people perceive as invention compared to what I am referring to as configuring. If you can show me a person who invented the most basic substance of existence then I will lend some belief. Intelligent design is rubbish too. Things have become configured!

There are many things beyond our understanding - to admit that, is to be set free of a massive burden - trying to hold on to an illusion mankind has recently created for himself. We are neither destined nor truly free - we have always existed somewhere in between. Truth is only painful in light of shredding ones illusion.

encode_decode

Using infinite homogeneity purely as a convenience . . .

Example 1.

Energy is the consequential state (aka “PtA”, Potential-to-Affect).
[size=85]James S Saint[/size]

Consequential indicates following as a result or effect. PtA has to have a value first before it can affect.

We have two variables: A & B

B is in an initial state of PtA = ZERO

A contains, well, lets say TWO - it whacks B with two.

B is now in a state of PtA = TWO as a consequence of being whacked by A

Please keep in mind that imagination is useful here.

We must crawl before we can walk . . .

Example 2.

Let us create two arrays: Array 1 and Array 2 - they live in metaspace.

Both arrays are randomly initialized . . . array one is the first array to affect and therefore is assigned as the primary array.

Array 1 stores the PtA of 1000 bits of fuzz-ball : Array 2 stores the PtA of 1000 bits of fuzz-ball

Array 1 and Array 2 are just references of the same bits of fuzz-ball

Array 1 is now the affecting array.

A affects B - B(which now has a new PtA) is in Array 2 - Array 2 is updated with the affect from Array 1 and now Array 2 becomes the primary array.

Array 2 is now the affecting array.

B affects C - C(which now has a new PtA) is in Array 1 - Array 1 is updated with the affect from Array 2 and now Array 1 become the primary array.

Array 1 is now the affecting array.

This switching of primaries continues indefinitely.

We can structure the Arrays so A, B, C etc. also contain coordinates along with PtA of the fuzz-ball bits.

NOTE: The Array Segments are copies of each other in both arrays - so A is in the first position and B is in the second position in both arrays. However each bit of fuzz-ball is free to move around in space - so later in the switching Z could be affecting A. I hope I am making sense . . .

What just happened in physical space? Let us break a rule and use infinite homogeneity as a convenience. Let us take a five by four chunk of physical space(2D).

A - 0 0 0 0 0
B - 0 0 0 0 0
C - 2 0 0 0 0
D - 0 0 0 0 0

As it relates to the previous example of ZERO and TWO. We finished at C in column one with a value of 2 because the example is linear - if we utilized coordinates we could have ended up in column 3 at position C provided we were going diagonally or column 3 at position A going left to right.

What was happening in metaspace is reflected in physical space. The switching of arrays is just conceptual. The affect in physical space is physical.

encode_decode

No longer using infinite homogeneity as a convenience . . .

Example 3.

A affects B - B(which now has a new PtA) is in Array 2 - Array 2 is updated with the affect from Array 1 and now Array 2 becomes the primary array.

Array 2 is now the affecting array. Affecting Array 1.

Lets mark our segments with hexadecimal instead . . . A becomes 0, B becomes 1, C becomes 2

0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E,F . . . 3E5,3E6,3E7 - This represents segments 0 to 999 without left padding(leading zeros)

(where 0 to F is 0 to 15 and 3E5=997, 3E6=998, 3E7=999) 1000 segments are updated at once.

All segments in the array are updated at once. Let us try it - with left padding(leading zeros)
The hexadecimal represents the segment addresses. Columns are in integers and separated by pipes for clarity.

First reset the active(primary) array back to Array 1.

Instant in time 0 - Each Segment is Randomly Initialized.

000 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 4 |
001 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 2 |
002 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 6 |
003 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 3 |
004 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 9 |
. . .
3E5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
3E6 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 5 |
3E7 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 1 |

Instant in time 1 - Lets propagate top to bottom in column 2 with a value of 1

000 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 4 |
001 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 2 |
002 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 6 |
003 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 3 |
004 | 2 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 9 |
. . .
3E5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
3E6 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 5 |
3E7 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 1 |

Propagation affects all segments in the array at once. This example represents two instances in time(0 and 1)

Notes: We finished at 3E7 in column two, changing the value from 2 to 3. All the PtA values were updated by one, in an instant of time - the example is still linear. If we utilized coordinates we could propagate diagonally and left to right as well. Actually we could do a lot more than that. The idea is isolating an elemental principle for study and to mentally internalize it ready for when things start happening in Euclidean 3D. More realistically PtA values are updated with their neighboring values.

encode_decode

This abstraction needed to be brought forward: I need to check for errors . . .

Calculating vectors - pre-conceptual!

Let Abit/s = affectance bit/s : Let N = any particular Abit in the array

With two arrays we are tracking many Abits:

Structure ForBothArrays ; using double precision(represented by the .d after each variable) PtA(N).d x(N).d y(N).d z(N).d EndStructure
Speed is one clock cycle(theoretically equating to the speed of light in physical space) represented as a tic.
Angle is randomly preset at the first moment of populating the Abit - and updated as the “difference” between n & dn where n can be x,y or z.
Currently void of the actual rules of engagement between Abits.

Each tic, n is assigned the value of dn - during the process of switching the primary(active) array over.

encode_decode

Regional Affectance Density - Energy - and Other

In preparation for mental disinfection - Here are some snippets from an earlier post . . .

Realize that in current Newtonian physics, a “field” is a “force field”, a topography of the mythical force vectors. RM:AO has no such force vectors, thus no “force fields”. RM:AO has affectance density fields, much like the humidity density of clouds or of people in a city. There is no “action at a distance” in AO (Einstein would have loved AO).

So Affectance waves propagate through an affectance field of different density than the affectance wave (again, like a sound wave in water). Affectance waves are always compression and often PtA propagating waves, “puffs”, or coalesced aggregates. The Newtonian physics equivalents are; electromagnetic waves, photons, and mass particles. A Maxwellian magnetic field is merely a compressed electric field (revealed by RM:AO). An electromagnetic wave is a compressed and/or decompressed electric wave propagating through ambient space = EMR.

[list][/list:u]
The blue wave is the PtA propagation (a Maxwellian “electric voltage wave”). The pink or purple wave is the magnetic component. Note that the magnetic component increases as the PtA wave enters a higher density affectance field - a gravity field. That compression is accompanied by a retardation in propagation speed. And that effect is the cause for Einstein’s “spacetime” relativity because both time and distance measures are compressed as the any wave enters a higher density affectance field. Those measure return to their normal by existing the higher density.

The “field” is the point by point variation in the potential of the overall situation (hence; “electric potential” and “Potential-to-Affect”). It is legitimate to talk about a “PtA field” in that sense, just not a “force field”. And keep in mind that a fixed magnet’s “magnetic field” is not the same as Maxwell’s magnetic component of EMR, although related.

Energy

Yes but … What precisely, is “energy”? Decades ago, they spoke of “potential energy” and “kinetic energy”. Those were actually identical to “Potential-to-Affect, PtA” and “Affectance” with merely one distinction: “Energy” was described merely as “the ability to do work” … but what constitutes “work”? RM:AO precisely describes “affect” in simple unambiguous terms (“to cause a change”). They had it right. They just didn’t relate it to the philosophical concern of “what is existence” other than to merely claim that “existence is energy as far as science can detect”. RM:AO is very specific and exact concerning the nature of existence as well as how and why all of the “laws” of physics and science in general exist. So now people get crazy with nonsense speculations of what existence might be - “perhaps those scientists just got it wrong”. There is no room for RM:AO to be wrong because the foundation is totally complete, comprehensive, “whole” and very revealing of why things are the way they are.

Yes. The electric field is the field of potential. The magnetic field is the compression of the electric field (the degree of point-by-point compression), and the electromagnetic field is the propagating combination. And realize, again, that a permanent magnet’s “magnetic field” is a different story than merely the "point-by-point compression of the electric field. A permanent magnet’s magnetic field is more related to the electromagnetic field, but not the same.

RM:AO is actually pretty simple, but once the mind is infected with current complex physics imagery, it can be difficult to see how simple the real picture is.

encode_decode

Not really. Haven’t you ever had an experience of what you might call a perfect moment?

You left out existential. You also left out experiential. Human beings do experience perfect moments. Is “reality” to be solely based on logic? We are not simply Minds. We are also Hearts and Spirits.
Nothing unrealistic about it. Is “real” only to be defined by the physical?
You seem to believe in a soul? How real is that and yet there are many who see it as real.

When one experiences what they define as that perfect moment, is it a hallucination? Is it a delusion?
No one has said that the perfect moment is eternal or lasting. But for a time, it can be felt as perfect
~~ “though nothing gold can stay.” (Frost).

As human beings, are we the perfect equation?

ab·so·lute
ˈabsəˌlo͞ot,ˌabsəˈlo͞ot/Submit
adjective
1.
not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
“absolute secrecy”
synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; More
2.
viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
“absolute moral standards”
synonyms: universal, fixed, independent, nonrelative, nonvariable, absolutist
“absolute moral standards”
noun
1.
PHILOSOPHY
a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.
“good and evil are presented as absolutes”

It wouldn’t be wrong if it was your perspective that it was wrong.

But I was not speaking of art here, encode_decode. I was speaking of how qualia is sensed and felt in the human psyche. You call it soul.

Is that what I said? If my memory hasn’t failed me, I think that I asked “Where does it go”? I mean, the heat, the energy?

“When circumstances permit” - For example?
It is quite wonderful, isn’t it?

My words were depending on the premises that what we are being told is true.
But I was basically speaking about how one can come to understand another’s way of thinking and perspectives.

Can you point out to me how what I said is different than what you said?

I was merely saying that i was not being rhetorical.

What was the question? lol

I appreciate your apology but it is not necessary.

?
What?! How does that even make sense? If we don’t ask questions, how would we ever learn if there are answers to be found? It’s only through asking the questions, then seeking the answers, investigating, examining, ad continuum that an answer may come. May not come ~~ YET, but how can we know if we do not utter the words?

I’m not sure that I understand this. It doesn’t make sense to me but then again many things do not make sense to me. Have you ever looked for your keys?
But perhaps you are using the word answer in a different way. Maybe what you are saying is that there is the probability that those keys are there unless you dropped them outside.
But before you find them, you haven’t found them. So the answer is not there unless you remember exactly where you put them after you have asked that question.

I think that this was about the question of determinism/pre-determination which I really do not choose to see. Why, because it takes away my free will, my choices though I do realize that ultimately will is not completely free nor are our choices. They are pre-determined from our past and those which effect/affect us (James, are you listening here) :-" But we are capable of transcending them or pushing through them.
But I can see that much of the Universe itself would appear to be determined - not so random…when pondering its workings.

I don’t like believing things, you know. If i can’t know something, why would I choose to believe it. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t imagine it, ponder it, wonder about it, be amazed by it…ad continuum.
I don’t like to be an absolutist. Today’s facts are tomorrow’s errors.

True. True. True.
Hmmm…can there be such a thing as informed opinion?
I love the phrases lending possibility and potential truth.
What do those two phrases have in common? They are not written in absolute stone.

Arcturus Descending

I only got a little way into your post before I started smiling.

Before I reply to the rest of it I want to reply to one question.

Surprisingly the answer is . . . yes . . . not much to brag about though because we are also variable.

We should be thankful that we are variable though - think existence and reality . . .

:-k