## Reality - Version 0.1

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

### Reality - Version 0.1

This time I present a more abstract look at reality.

I will start by introducing the concept of metaspace as defined by Wiktionary

Etymology

meta- +‎ space

Noun

metaspace (countable and uncountable, plural metaspaces)

(philosophy) A space transcending ordinary physical space, such as cyberspace.
(computing theory) The conceptual space occupied by metaobjects.

Last time I said:

1. First there is nothing.
2. Secondly inside this nothing there is infinity.
3. It is infinity that fills the void of nothing.

Reality - Version 0.0 can be found here . . .

This time I say:

1. Before US there is the metaspace.
2. Inside the metaspace there is the physical space.
3. It is metaspace that transcends the physical space.

US is you, me, atoms, molecules, animals, other beings, planets, stars et cetera.

Next I will introduce the concept of metaobject as defined by Wiktionary

Etymology

meta- +‎ object

Noun

metaobject (plural metaobjects)

(computing) Any entity that manipulates, creates, describes, or implements others

My questions here are: Is GOD the entity that manipulates, creates, describes, or implements others? . . OR . . . Is GOD the metacosm?

I think GOD creates any entity that manipulates, creates, describes, or implements others.

Now with GOD we are able to create infinite combinations of "metaobjects", obviously not all at once or we would be approaching entropy. These "metaobjects" are in many combinations and called things like atoms, molecules, selves, planets, stars et cetera all of which individually blend back into the metaspace at different times and individually arise from the metaspace at different times.

We remove entropy from the equation . . . The physical universe has no beginning and no end . . .

The physical manifestation of any combination of metaobjects is what we come to know as the physical universe.

Matter and space make up the cosmos. The cosmos is: the universe seen as a well-ordered whole.

My next question then is: What is space?

I appeal to the reader to allow me to play with the definition of metacosm . . . again found at Wiktionary.

The metacosm is the manifestation of GOD.

Is GOD a transcendent field of higher forces beyond the physical universe?
Is GOD a system that encompasses cosmos systems?

Or . . . Is GOD something else?

Reality - Version 0.1 is then:

Chain of existence(reality) = GOD -> metaspace -> metaobjects -> manifesting as Physical Universe AKA US

. . . otherwise written as . . .

Chain of existence(reality) = metacosm -> metaspace -> metaobjects -> manifesting as Physical Universe AKA US

. . . Or alternatively: Reality - Version 0.1.1 . . .

Chain of existence(reality) = GOD metaspace -> metaobjects -> manifesting as Physical Universe AKA US

. . . otherwise written as . . .

Chain of existence(reality) = metacosm metaspace -> metaobjects -> manifesting as Physical Universe AKA US

A memory could then be:

[a combination of metaobjects] that when manifest as [a combination of physical objects]
are called NOW AKA the PRESENT.

Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

encode_decode wrote:My questions here are: Is GOD the entity that manipulates, creates, describes, or implements others? . . OR . . . Is GOD the metacosm?

I think GOD creates any entity that manipulates, creates, describes, or implements others.

Now with GOD we are able to create infinite combinations of "metaobjects", obviously not all at once or we would be approaching entropy. These "metaobjects" are in many combinations and called things like atoms, molecules, selves, planets, stars et cetera all of which individually blend back into the metaspace at different times and individually arise from the metaspace at different times.

We remove entropy from the equation . . . The physical universe has no beginning and no end . . .

The physical manifestation of any combination of metaobjects is what we come to know as the physical universe.

Matter and space make up the cosmos. The cosmos is: the universe seen as a well-ordered whole.

My next question then is: What is space?

I appeal to the reader to allow me to play with the definition of metacosm . . . again found at Wiktionary.

The metacosm is the manifestation of GOD.

Is GOD a transcendent field of higher forces beyond the physical universe?
Is GOD a system that encompasses cosmos systems?

Or . . . Is GOD something else?

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.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James

James S Saint wrote: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.

So are you saying that god is the metaspace or god caused the metaspace? Metaspace in the context of my question is figurative for the time being . . .
Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

encode_decode wrote:James

James S Saint wrote: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.

So are you saying that god is the metaspace or god caused the metaspace? Metaspace in the context of my question is figurative for the time being . . .

To me, the word "metaspace" (aka "virtual space") refers to the conceptual space, usually Euclidean space. God, and all "angels" are concepts that "exist in" the "Divine" or "Conceptual Realm" of ideas, concepts, and/or principles that govern physical behavior.

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.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James

So let me see if I have this right . . .

metaspace ≡ conceptual space = Euclidean space

Could you elaborate on fundamental affect for me?

James S Saint wrote:In a sense, affectance causes physical space.

Is affectance related to the fundamental affect?

James S Saint wrote:God, and all "angels" are concepts that "exist in" the "Divine" or "Conceptual Realm" of ideas, concepts, and/or principles that govern physical behavior.

Could you define what you mean by govern? Please.

Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

encode_decode wrote:James

So let me see if I have this right . . .

metaspace ≡ conceptual space = Euclidean space

Yes, except not necessarily Euclidean. 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.

encode_decode wrote:Could you elaborate on fundamental affect for me?

Endlessly.

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").

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).

encode_decode wrote:
James S Saint wrote:In a sense, affectance causes physical space.

Is affectance related to the fundamental affect?

OhYeah .. big time.

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

encode_decode wrote:
James S Saint wrote:God, and all "angels" are concepts that "exist in" the "Divine" or "Conceptual Realm" of ideas, concepts, and/or principles that govern physical behavior.

Could you define what you mean by govern? Please.

To govern is to limit behavior. The name Ahdam (aka Adam, the purported first governor of Mankind), means "limiting random behavior" or "damming up the flow of chaotically free spirit".

As you can probably tell, actual physics and proper scriptures are pretty much the same thing to me.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James

To sum up what we have so far then:

Abbreviations:

Where COEG = Chain of existence(AKA reality) Governing

. . . causing . . .

Where COEP = Chain of existence(AKA reality) Physical

Definitions:

COEG ≡ metaspace -> metaobjects[GOD et cetera]

. . . causing . . .

COEP ≡ affectance -> manifesting as Physical Universe AKA US[COSMOS]

Am I getting closer?
Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

encode_decode wrote:James

To sum up what we have so far then:

Abbreviations:

Where COEG = Chain of existence(AKA reality) Governing

. . . causing . . .

Where COEP = Chain of existence(AKA reality) Physical

Definitions:

COEG ≡ metaspace -> metaobjects[GOD et cetera]

. . . causing . . .

COEP ≡ affectance -> manifesting as Physical Universe AKA US[COSMOS]

Am I getting closer?

"Chain"?? Metaspace is a chain?
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James

James S Saint wrote:"Chain"?? Metaspace is a chain?

Not necessarily - I am trying to understand what you are saying.

I am primarily saying that:

affectance "leads to" the physical universe

I use the composite symbol "->" in place of the words "leads to" so:

metaspace "->" meta objects.

affectance "->" the physical universe

Secondarily I am attempting to comprehend how the metaspace is connected to affectance - if at all. I was saying that metaspace is part of a chain.
Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

Well okay, "chain" refers to "chain of reasoning". I can deal with that.

I would say that metaspace "allows for" meta-objects. The entire "meta-whatever" tends to refer to abstract concepts. And in RM:AO, Euclidean space is used as the ontological choice for spatial dimensions. Within that "metaspace" (conceptual 3D-space), the infinite field of affectance flows and forms material matter: .
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James

James S Saint wrote:Well okay, "chain" refers to "chain of reasoning". I can deal with that.

I would say that metaspace "allows for" meta-objects. The entire "meta-whatever" tends to refer to abstract concepts. And in RM:AO, Euclidean space is used as the ontological choice for spatial dimensions. Within that "metaspace" (conceptual 3D-space), the infinite field of affectance flows and forms material matter.

You are otherwise saying: the infinite field of affectance flows and forms material matter - is being described by metaobjects(substance) in the metaspace. If this is the case then that clears up a huge amount of ambiguity for me.

Cause would only be associated in the "leads to" part.

NOT:

COEG ≡ metaspace -> metaobjects[GOD et cetera]

. . . causing . . .

COEP ≡ affectance -> manifesting as Physical Universe AKA US[COSMOS]

So rather than causing - the term would be describes?

metaspace "->" meta objects.

. . . describes . . .

affectance "->" the physical universe

OR

COEG ≡ metaspace -> metaobjects

. . . is describing . . .

COEP ≡ affectance -> manifesting as Physical Universe

Which means to me that I can now dump the COEG and COEP when discussing this with you. The "meta" is the ontology which describes actual physical processes. You are also saying that the COEG is a set of governing principles of the COEP which are there to help us understand how the interactions in the physical universe take place at any given time.

Affectance then is a substance - if I am not mistaken - a substance of the physical universe.

PtA is a meta-concept in the governing principles.
Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

encode_decode wrote:James

James S Saint wrote:Well okay, "chain" refers to "chain of reasoning". I can deal with that.

I would say that metaspace "allows for" meta-objects. The entire "meta-whatever" tends to refer to abstract concepts. And in RM:AO, Euclidean space is used as the ontological choice for spatial dimensions. Within that "metaspace" (conceptual 3D-space), the infinite field of affectance flows and forms material matter.

You are otherwise saying: the infinite field of affectance flows and forms material matter - is being described by metaobjects(substance) in the metaspace. If this is the case then that clears up a huge amount of ambiguity for me.

Cause would only be associated in the "leads to" part.

NOT:

COEG ≡ metaspace -> metaobjects[GOD et cetera]

. . . causing . . .

COEP ≡ affectance -> manifesting as Physical Universe AKA US[COSMOS]

So rather than causing - the term would be describes?

metaspace "->" meta objects.

. . . describes . . .

affectance "->" the physical universe

OR

COEG ≡ metaspace -> metaobjects

. . . is describing . . .

COEP ≡ affectance -> manifesting as Physical Universe

Which means to me that I can now dump the COEG and COEP when discussing this with you. The "meta" is the ontology which describes actual physical processes. You are also saying that the COEG is a set of governing principles of the COEP which are there to help us understand how the interactions in the physical universe take place at any given time.

Affectance then is a substance - if I am not mistaken - a substance of the physical universe.

PtA is a meta-concept in the governing principles.

Now you are getting into an often misunderstood semantic distinction concerning "cause" and "description".

For anything to physically exist, it must have physical affect. And anything that has physical affect, physically exists. Existence comes in two distinct and separate realms; Physical Realm and Conceptual or Divine Realm. The only physical existence is the situation of the affecting of the situation, the changing of the changing or affecting of the affecting. And because of that, it can be said that the only physically existing cause of anything is the concurrent situation. There is no other cause to anything, ever. One can accurately state that the real God is "The Situation" because it is The Situation (of all reality) that determines all that can and will be (the very definition of a god). And there can be only one true Situation, thus only one true god, aka "The God".

We often say that "because of this abstract principle or general behavior certain changes will take place". And when we say it that way, we are inadvertently imposing physical existence upon abstract notions. It isn't the "general behavior" but rather the particular behavior that brings changes in a given situation. Particular behaviors physically exist in the physical realm while general behaviors or principles conceptually exist in the conceptual realm of existence.

On the other hand, wherever a general behavior is being enacted, that behavior is particular at that moment in that location and physically exists as a causation. So one cannot always separate the general principle from the physical reality. We can say that "the principle of gravity causes things to fall". Is that true? Does the general principle called "gravity" actually cause anything? Is that general principle being enacted anywhere? Wherever it is being enacted, it physically exists as a cause.

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.

So whether a principle is merely a general description or an actual behavioral causation depends upon exactly which principle is being discussed.

When I speak of the general behavior of affectance, because affectance IS the entire universe, that general principle is physically real and a cause of physical changes. Even though it is an abstract notion, it is physically represented literally everywhere and thus is the physical reality.

So meta-objects and principles can be the physically real causality or they might be instead merely abstract descriptions of currently non-existent objects and behaviors.

PtA, Potential-to-Affect, refers to a physical situation, an arrangement of substance, not the substance itself. Space is similar in that regard. As PtA changes, it becomes the physical substance called "affectance". And PtA is always undergoing changes, being affected as it affects. Affectance is the changing of the PtA situation. Affectance is the changing whereas PtA is the arrangement of the changing that is itself being changed. It is easiest to think of PtA as an electric field and affectance as a electromagnetic wave (EMR). An electric field is merely a situation, not a substance. And an electromagnetic wave is an electric field that is changing.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James

James S Saint wrote:Now you are getting into an often misunderstood semantic distinction concerning "cause" and "description".

Quite possibly. I am deeply analyzing what you are saying.

Language has become quite the chasm these days.

We will get to the bottom of it.

"Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce"

First lets take a bite sized piece of what you have written.

James S Saint wrote:For anything to physically exist, it must have physical affect. And anything that has physical affect, physically exists.

Agreed.

James S Saint wrote:Existence comes in two distinct and separate realms; Physical Realm and Conceptual or Divine Realm. The only physical existence is the situation of the affecting of the situation, the changing of the changing or affecting of the affecting.

Agreed.

James S Saint wrote:And because of that, it can be said that the only physically existing cause of anything is the concurrent situation. There is no other cause to anything, ever. One can accurately state that the real God is "The Situation" because it is The Situation (of all reality) that determines all that can and will be (the very definition of a god). And there can be only one true Situation, thus only one true god, aka "The God".

The situation is both physical and conceptual.

meta & physical

Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

encode_decode wrote:meta & physical

True. The physical affects the physical and the meta affects the meta. And at times, they are the same thing.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James - either my brain is not working properly or something is amiss.

"For anything to physically exist, it must have physical affect. And anything that has physical affect, physically exists."

"The situation is both physical and conceptual."

meta & physical

James S Saint wrote:The physical affects the physical and the meta affects the meta. And at times, they are the same thing.

"And at times, they are the same thing." We need to think about this more carefully. Time again presents itself to be a problem.

A memory could then be:

[a combination of metaobjects] that when manifest as [a combination of physical objects]
are called NOW AKA the PRESENT.

Would you agree that a memory is a combination of metaobjects? Only when they are manifest as a combination of physical objects are they called NOW AKA the PRESENT. Memories exist in the metaspace. Memories can only exist from an infinitesimal moment before the present and extend back in time.

I am suggesting that at "no time" are the "meta" and the "physical" the same - the meta and the physical are asymmetrical.

"For anything to physically exist, it must have physical affect. And anything that has physical affect, physically exists."

When only the memory of something that physically existed is left: the laws of conservation kick in on the physical but the meta keeps growing unless: the meta universe is capable of forgetting. Memory and history are fundamentally the same thing.

For the meta and the physical to be concurrent then the meta and the physical must have concurrent entropy.

Where do the memories actually go? Where is history now? What is the past? et cetera.

Leads me to similar questions regarding the present and future. All possible possibilities must already exist in the metaspace.

On the other hand:

For anything to exist, it must have affect. Meta or physical.

Including memories.

Required here is a "balancing effect" of potential "inverse proportions" or further explanation.
Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

encode_decode wrote:James - either my brain is not working properly or something is amiss.

Oh, I'm betting on a combination there.

encode_decode wrote:"For anything to physically exist, it must have physical affect. And anything that has physical affect, physically exists."

"The situation is both physical and conceptual."

meta & physical

James S Saint wrote:The physical affects the physical and the meta affects the meta. And at times, they are the same thing.

"And at times, they are the same thing." We need to think about this more carefully. Time again presents itself to be a problem.

From a prior post:
James S Saint wrote: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.

So whether a principle is merely a general description or an actual behavioral causation depends upon exactly which principle is being discussed.

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.

Things like perfect circles or squares cannot manifest in physical form, so they must always remain isolated in the Conceptual Realm. But I can't think of anything physical that cannot be represented also in the Conceptual Realm.

encode_decode wrote:A memory could then be:

[a combination of metaobjects] that when manifest as [a combination of physical objects]
are called NOW AKA the PRESENT.

Would you agree that a memory is a combination of metaobjects? Only when they are manifest as a combination of physical objects are they called NOW AKA the PRESENT. Memories exist in the metaspace. Memories can only exist from an infinitesimal moment before the present and extend back in time.

I am suggesting that at "no time" are the "meta" and the "physical" the same - the meta and the physical are asymmetrical.

"For anything to physically exist, it must have physical affect. And anything that has physical affect, physically exists."

When only the memory of something that physically existed is left: the laws of conservation kick in on the physical but the meta keeps growing unless: the meta universe is capable of forgetting. Memory and history are fundamentally the same thing.

For the meta and the physical to be concurrent then the meta and the physical must have concurrent entropy.

The concept of a "circular shape" is not an idealized concept. A circular shape can be represented in the physical because there are no precise specifications beyond physical capability. But the circular shape concept and the physical circular shape might only stay united for a short period. The concept never changes, but the physical shape might deviate too far away from circular to say that it represents a circular shape any longer.

So the meta realm can "touch" the physical realm as ideas are temporarily manifest in physical form. During those moments, the concept and the physical are the same. But after a while, the physical is likely to drift away and no long be "in contact with" (no longer represent) the never changing concept.

encode_decode wrote:Where do the memories actually go? Where is history now? What is the past? et cetera.

Leads me to similar questions regarding the present and future. All possible possibilities must already exist in the metaspace.

On the other hand:

For anything to exist, it must have affect. Meta or physical.

Including memories.

Required here is a "balancing effect" of potential "inverse proportions" or further explanation.

I'm not certain what it is that you are referring to as a "memory". To me, a memory is merely the residue of a perception. It has physical existence in that it affects the physical brain and mind. But with every physical anything, there is also an associated concept. The concept always remains the same concept, but the physical memory eventually falls to entropy.

There is a real history, a perceived history, and proposed history. They are seldom the same. The actual past does not physically exist, rather the past forms a residue that is the present as the present forms a residue to become the future.

As known among tank and bulldozer pilots, "Mind carefully the path you make by the path you take."

In everything you do, you are forming the future and displacing the past.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James

While I spend more time contemplating your posts I want to ask a few varied questions - allowing preparation for formation of future questions - relating to shape, particles, speed of light and force.

James S Saint wrote:Things like perfect circles or squares cannot manifest in physical form, so they must always remain isolated in the Conceptual Realm. But I can't think of anything physical that cannot be represented also in the Conceptual Realm.

Perfect circles are just polygons with an infinite amount of sides - so can anything manifest in physical form that is related to infinity? I have my doubts - I would say only affectance.

James S Saint wrote:The concept of a "circular shape" is not an idealized concept. A circular shape can be represented in the physical because there are no precise specifications beyond physical capability. But the circular shape concept and the physical circular shape might only stay united for a short period. The concept never changes, but the physical shape might deviate too far away from circular to say that it represents a circular shape any longer.

I have a peculiar question here - we often represent protons, neutrons and electrons as circular/spherical in diagrams - given what you are saying in the quote and that we have never directly observed the mentioned particles with our eyes would you say that it is possible that these particles are possibly more likened to a fuzz-ball? fuzz-ball chaotically morphing around a circular/spherical median.

Wikipedia wrote:Also some Lorentz-violating variants of quantum gravity might allow faster-than-light neutrinos. A comprehensive framework for Lorentz violations is the Standard-Model Extension (SME).

This quote aside - what do your theories state about the speed of light?

Wikipedia wrote:* Weak interactions create neutrinos in one of three leptonic flavors: electron neutrinos (νe), muon neutrinos (νμ), or tau neutrinos (ντ), in association with the corresponding charged lepton. Although neutrinos were long believed to be massless, it is now known that there are three discrete neutrino masses with different tiny values, but they do not correspond uniquely to the three flavors.

Interactions aside for the time being - Do your theories have anything to mention about the weak subatomic force?

* Please excuse the lack of subscript in νe, νμ, ντ
Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

Sorry, I had missed this post. I thought that you had moved onto Version 0.2.

encode_decode wrote:James

While I spend more time contemplating your posts I want to ask a few varied questions - allowing preparation for formation of future questions - relating to shape, particles, speed of light and force.

James S Saint wrote:Things like perfect circles or squares cannot manifest in physical form, so they must always remain isolated in the Conceptual Realm. But I can't think of anything physical that cannot be represented also in the Conceptual Realm.

Perfect circles are just polygons with an infinite amount of sides - so can anything manifest in physical form that is related to infinity? I have my doubts - I would say only affectance.

A circle isn't defined as a polygon with an infinity of sides, but even if it was, you can go through the logic concerning the probability of an infinity of perfectly equal length lines aligning such as to have the exact same distance from a particular point as well as being aligned end to end such as to reconnect into a circle. The probability would become more than infinitely low. And that means no chance at all.

The physical universe cannot produce straight lines either. So certainly not an infinity of them.

encode_decode wrote:
James S Saint wrote:The concept of a "circular shape" is not an idealized concept. A circular shape can be represented in the physical because there are no precise specifications beyond physical capability. But the circular shape concept and the physical circular shape might only stay united for a short period. The concept never changes, but the physical shape might deviate too far away from circular to say that it represents a circular shape any longer.

I have a peculiar question here - we often represent protons, neutrons and electrons as circular/spherical in diagrams - given what you are saying in the quote and that we have never directly observed the mentioned particles with our eyes would you say that it is possible that these particles are possibly more likened to a fuzz-ball? fuzz-ball chaotically morphing around a circular/spherical median.

Certainly. The universe would allow no other.

encode_decode wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:Also some Lorentz-violating variants of quantum gravity might allow faster-than-light neutrinos. A comprehensive framework for Lorentz violations is the Standard-Model Extension (SME).

This quote aside - what do your theories state about the speed of light?

Light photons (light bundles of energy) are extremely large puffs of affectance (relative to afflate sizing) traveling in a single direction. Such large groups have to "swim" through the ambient affectance field and thus their speed is dependent upon the density of that field.

A field of absolute zero affectance is not physically possible, but the thought of it allows for a measuring point for "zero density" (absolute nothingness). IF such a zero-field existed, affectance would travel through that zero-field at a particular speed (infinite speed is impossible due to all affects requiring time). A puff of affectance with zero resistance must propagate as fast as any affect can possibly travel. That much is logically required.

A puff of light traveling through an "absolute vacuum" would be the same as an afflate traveling through absolute nothingness. And thus the propagation speed of both would be identical = "the speed of light in an absolute vacuum" = "c$$_0$$".

Real light photons can never actually do that and in fact, due to their size, there is always an afflate that is propagating faster than any light photon. But the difference between them is almost immeasurably small. So practically speaking, the speed of light in an absolute vacuum, the speed of an afflate in zero density ambient affectance, and the fastest propagation speed possible are all the same. What the Quantum Magi like to imagine has been proven too often to be mere mathematically obfuscated fantasy.

encode_decode wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:* Weak interactions create neutrinos in one of three leptonic flavors: electron neutrinos (νe), muon neutrinos (νμ), or tau neutrinos (ντ), in association with the corresponding charged lepton. Although neutrinos were long believed to be massless, it is now known that there are three discrete neutrino masses with different tiny values, but they do not correspond uniquely to the three flavors.

Interactions aside for the time being - Do your theories have anything to mention about the weak subatomic force?

Certainly. First there are no "forces" as such. What we experience as "force" is actually just an emergent effect due to gradient migrations. The strong and weak force issues fall into that category - nonexistent. And also, the Quantum Magi have attempted to imagine and name very many "particles" concerning subatomic structure which do not exist either. They preach as if it is all factual when in reality, most of their speculations have never been witnessed at all. And even what has been witnessed is spun into their broken ontology at their convenience.

Quantum Physics is not merely incomplete, but entirely fantasy. Their equations often work, but not for the superstitious reasoning that the give. The equations work simply because they have been dealing with averages of interactions that accumulate into extremely precise numbers that can be easily repeated. But the averages are not particles at all. No single reaction ever obeys Quantum Physics, rather the average effect turns out to be predictable. And that means that their speculated "particles" are just nonsense imaginings, fairies in the forest. They are the modern day high-tech Mother Goose spewing fairy tales to explain the unobservable mysteries.

With that in mind, realize that I do not try to work their fantasy particles into RM:AO ("leptons", "muons", "gluons", "quarks", "hadrons", "gravitons",...). Affectance ontology is about what absolutely must be true regardless of any prior observations, speculations, imaginings, or namings. Observations display that there are subatomic particles and that such particles form, aggregate, disperse, and vanish with associated EMR. Exactly why they do such has been the fuel for fantasy imaginings for centuries. RM:AO explains exactly why they do all that they do without having to invent hundreds of fantasy particles and magical forces.

The primary issue in subatomic interactions is the decay and formation of particles and the energy involved (typically in the form of EMR). As any interaction occurs, energy is either released or absorbed. In Quantum Physics every tiny puff of energy is given another name and called a "quantum particle". In reality, they are almost never particles (self sustaining entities) nor unique in any way other than being merely a different amount of energy being released or absorbed. In RM:AO terms, it would be variations in the amount of "affectance" being released or absorbed - no "particles" involved other than those remaining stable.

In RM:AO there are particles and also "polyparticles". A polyparticle is merely a single particle that is made of smaller stable, self-sustaining particles. An atom's nucleus is an example of a polyparticle in that it is protons and neutrons coalesced into a single mass. When they coalesce, they absorb a considerable amount of extra affectance (of which they are made and RM:AO explains why they do). That extra affectance is released when the smaller particles are separated. Quantum Physics likes to call that extra affectance a "particle" (such as a "gluon particle"), yet it has no epicenter and is not at all stable in itself. They invent the "weak force" as the superstitious magic that holds it all together. When separated, the extra affectance merely radiates as a small puff of EMR. Radioactive nuclear decay - "nuclear fission", even explosive, is the observable result.

What they choose to call the "weak force" (or more recently the "weak interaction" .. perhaps waking up to the fact that there isn't any actual force involved) seems to be a catch-all for whatever other force-like interactions that they haven't named. What used to be called a "chemical bond" is now a "weak force/interaction" as well.

The mythical "strong force" hides within the larger particles; protons, neutrons, anti-protons, and such. These are also polyparticles formed of positron, neutrino, and electron sized stable particles. And again, as the smaller particles coalesce, they absorb extra affectance, causing the aggregant to be much, much larger than the individual particles. A proton is about 1000 times larger than the positron and neutrinos that formed it. In Quantum Physics, the sub-particles of the proton are called "quarks" with "flavors" of "up, down, top, bottom, strange and charm". Such designations are merely their effort to put together a jigsaw puzzle ontology that will allow for logical explanation of what they observe while including what they want to believe.

Last edited by James S Saint on Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James

I am so relieved you responded.

To say that your response put a smile on my face is a gross understatement.

James S Saint wrote:Sorry, I had missed this post. I thought that you had moved onto Version 0.2.

No need to apologize - I take full responsibility - Versions 0.0, 0.1, 0.2 are for three reasons - of which I will not go into here - for now anyway. Version 0.1 is probably the most important to me as it deals with creation from what I can tell.

That aside - I was surprised to see the content of the response - more detail than I anticipated - and quality detail at that.

James S Saint wrote:A circle isn't defined as a polygon with an infinity of sides, but even if it was, you can go through the logic concerning the probability of an infinity of perfectly equal length lines aligning such as to have the exact same distance from a particular point as well as being aligned end to end such as to reconnect into a circle. The probability would become more than infinitely low. And that means no chance at all.

I have actually heard that a circle is defined as a polygon with an infinite amount of sides - not to say that I believe it; I think this is what I refer to as a confinive paradox - as no limit is placed into the definition. Your definition provides me with a more realistic geometry to work with.

No need to answer the following attempt at humor - unless there is a actual error:

Do the "fuzz-balls" have an actual name? Are they the "puffs of affectance" you refer to?
If so, are they available in the supermarket? I am kidding around of course.

A puff of light traveling through an "absolute vacuum" would be the same as an afflate traveling through absolute nothingness. And thus the propagation speed of both would be identical = "the speed of light in an absolute vacuum" = "c0".

I noticed you put quotes on the term "absolute vacuum" - could you be a little more expressive of that term? Is that even possible?

I will be back to excitedly respond to a whole bunch of stuff in this thread.

Do you have any parting thoughts on relativity? Do you have any parting thoughts on string theory/M theory?

I ask these final two questions for a simple reason - I have a feeling that they are confinive paradoxes. Open ended and without limits.
Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

I had forgot that I had a related video on youtube for that last post. So I edited it in.

encode_decode wrote:No need to answer the following attempt at humor - unless there is a actual error:

Do the "fuzz-balls" have an actual name? Are they the "puffs of affectance" you refer to?
If so, are they available in the supermarket? I am kidding around of course.

The fundamental "fuzz balls", I gave the same names as the commonly known physics particle; "electron, positron, and neutrino". The larger polyparticles that are stable, I give the same names as commonly known physics particles; proton, neutron, anti-proton (or "negaton"). The small puffs of fleeting affectance dissipating into the vast cosmos, I don't name. And you would be hard pressed to find a supermarket without them on every shelf.

encode_decode wrote:
A puff of light traveling through an "absolute vacuum" would be the same as an afflate traveling through absolute nothingness. And thus the propagation speed of both would be identical = "the speed of light in an absolute vacuum" = "c0".

I noticed you put quotes on the term "absolute vacuum" - could you be a little more expressive of that term? Is that even possible?

An absolute vacuum, a void of nothingness, is absolutely impossible. It is an ideal, much like the perfect circle or square, none of which can actually exist in the physical universe. I put it in quotes merely to indicate that it is called "absolute vacuum" even though it doesn't actually exist.

encode_decode wrote:Do you have any parting thoughts on relativity? Do you have any parting thoughts on string theory/M theory?

Only that people should realize that each of these is a separate ontology and that none of them so far reflect a complete model of reality (with the exception of RM:AO). One cannot mix and match ontologies any more than mixing spoken languages and expect to make sense. For any of these ontologies to be "true" means that they properly and comprehensively map the terrain of reality. It is possible for more than one ontology to be true because an ontology is merely a way of describing reality. Some ontologies are more useful than others and dependent upon what field of interest is being addressed. Relativity ontology is good for extreme speed conditions. Newtonian ontology is good for most mechanical interactions. I consider String Ontology (and thus it complication M-theory) to be a bit of non-sense that even its inventor gave up on but is good for keeping mathematicians busy. Quantum Physics ontology is good for laughs and bemusing the children.

They are all incomplete, "open-ended", "non-confinive" (except for Affectance Ontology, of course).
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James

Now I can deal with a slightly larger chunk of information from the post that is found here

In my first response which can be found here we basically agreed that: The situation is both physical and conceptual - meta & physical. You in turn said: True. The physical affects the physical and the meta affects the meta. And at times, they are the same thing. Fundamentally we are saying that the two realms are concurrent.

James S Saint wrote:We often say that "because of this abstract principle or general behavior certain changes will take place". And when we say it that way, we are inadvertently imposing physical existence upon abstract notions. It isn't the "general behavior" but rather the particular behavior that brings changes in a given situation. Particular behaviors physically exist in the physical realm while general behaviors or principles conceptually exist in the conceptual realm of existence.

Lets say for instance that I write a program in the physical realm. Would there not be meta+in+formation contained within the code? When I execute the said code it "causes to be" a program.

James S Saint wrote:On the other hand, wherever a general behavior is being enacted, that behavior is particular at that moment in that location and physically exists as a causation. So one cannot always separate the general principle from the physical reality. We can say that "the principle of gravity causes things to fall". Is that true? Does the general principle called "gravity" actually cause anything? Is that general principle being enacted anywhere? Wherever it is being enacted, it physically exists as a cause.

I see what you are saying here - I particularly like the example you are using relating to gravity. You are saying that gravity has a physical component - this physical component is a force - as stated previously force is ambiguous too - intuitively then gravity is like a reverse affectance. So I ask you then how is affectance able to explain gravity?

I understand what you are saying but for x number of people gravity is a pulling force - with affect on affect being what it is - gravity is not actually a pulling force.

James S Saint wrote: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.

To x number of people this would become counter-intuitive. Rationally on the other hand you are saying God is the physical universe.

Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

encode_decode wrote:You in turn said: True. The physical affects the physical and the meta affects the meta. And at times, they are the same thing. Fundamentally we are saying that the two realms are concurrent.

Well, "concurrent" isn't the best word. They coexist. The word "concurrent" implies motion and the conceptual realm has no motion or change.

encode_decode wrote:Lets say for instance that I write a program in the physical realm. Would there not be meta+in+formation contained within the code?

Every physical existence has a conceptual existence.

encode_decode wrote:When I execute the said code it "causes to be" a program.

... depending on how you define "program"; as a physical thing operating, a pattern of codes, or as a concept.

Imagine the you were the very first to invent the "jump to" command for computers. Before the command was ever executed, it was just an idea, a concept. But as the computer actually executes the command, the concept of "jumping on command" becomes a physical reality. As soon as the computer is no longer doing it, it is no longer a physical entity. Yet it was always a concept, before, during, and after its physical manifestation.

encode_decode wrote:You are saying that gravity has a physical component - this physical component is a force

I am saying that what we call "gravity" is both physical in every location where it is operating and also "gravity" is a concept at all times. But as stated, there are no "forces". Gravity is not a force, but rather a "gradient migration" (a migration due to an affectance density gradient).

encode_decode wrote:as stated previously force is ambiguous too - intuitively then gravity is like a reverse affectance. So I ask you then how is affectance able to explain gravity?

Gravitating is what particles do when they are in an affectance density gradient (ie. denser gradually becoming less dense or vsvrsa). Particles migrate into the higher affectance density (assuming no polarity is involved).

encode_decode wrote:I understand what you are saying but for x number of people gravity is a pulling force - with affect on affect being what it is - gravity is not actually a pulling force.

Gravitation behaves such as to give the appearance of a pulling force. For all practical purposes, it might as well be a pulling force. But what is actually happening has nothing to do with forces pulling or pushing anything. The center point of each particle is merely getting reconstructed a little closer to the more dense affectance field - closer to the other mass as shown in this video:
RM:Affectance Ontology - Particle Migration - Momentum and Gravitation.

encode_decode wrote:
James S Saint wrote: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.

To x number of people this would become counter-intuitive. Rationally on the other hand you are saying God is the physical universe.

Some people say that, but I didn't. The more original idea defining "God" is that God is the concept governing the behavior of physical existence. God is the principle behind to cause of physical existence, the "First/Prime Cause". But to the materialist and God-haters, there is no conceptual existence, only physical existence. Thus in their ontology, there is no God - no Principle causing physical existence other than physical existence itself. It is a matter of ontology and what you choose to hate. But then they also preach the Big Bang. So one has to wonder how physical existence ever came about in their ontology. They usually just default to "well, the laws of physics were different back then" .. which of course doesn't answer the question, thus serving as a "god of the gaps" hand-waving ("The magical laws of physics did it").
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

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

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

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

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James

Affectance Ontology requires considerable effort to internalize and make intuitive; I believe this internalization is very worthwhile - the more I contemplate RM:AO the more I internalize it - I appreciate your considerable effort in helping me to understand.

James S Saint wrote:So whether a principle is merely a general description or an actual behavioral causation depends upon exactly which principle is being discussed.

An algorithm lives in metaspace - a program lives in physical space. The only part of the algorithm that lives in physical space is its physical representation. If I am thinking too much in terms of systems you are welcome to let me know - my subjective reality at the moment it seems is system based.

James S Saint wrote:When I speak of the general behavior of affectance, because affectance IS the entire universe, that general principle is physically real and a cause of physical changes. Even though it is an abstract notion, it is physically represented literally everywhere and thus is the physical reality.

I understand where you are coming from - only when I read this - to internalize it is going to take me a little while longer.

James S Saint wrote:So meta-objects and principles can be the physically real causality or they might be instead merely abstract descriptions of currently non-existent objects and behaviors.

OK this makes sense - I think - it seems to understand this, one needs to make some corrections to the way one thinks. I am so used to thinking in terms of physics but physics often leads to more ambiguity through gaps in descriptions. Would currently non-existent objects and behaviors be anything like the cloud formations in the future and the weather forecast used to describe the conditions for those clouds?

Taking a snap shot of reality requires a system - affectance causes systems - systems in nature are not permanent. The only system that is permanent is affectance.
Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

encode_decode wrote:Would currently non-existent objects and behaviors be anything like the cloud formations in the future and the weather forecast used to describe the conditions for those clouds?

Yes, or any other conjecture.

encode_decode wrote: The only system that is permanent is affectance.

I'm not sure that it is the "only system that is permanent", but it certainly is one. The physical universe can never be other than affectance. The higher forms that affectance takes will come and go in various regions, but the fundamental substance can never change. Although someone might choose a different way of describing it (a different ontology, "model", or "system").
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Reality - Version 0.1

James

Thank you.

I'm not sure that it is the "only system that is permanent", but it certainly is one. The physical universe can never be other than affectance. The higher forms that affectance takes will come and go in various regions, but the fundamental substance can never change. Although someone might choose a different way of describing it (a different ontology, "model", or "system").

Brilliant. I am quite satisfied with the way you have described this.

I will now collate information from this thread ready for the next part of the discussion.

Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
(James S Saint)

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

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself)

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

Next