Page 2 of 2

Re: When you sit down, it is the chair rising to you?

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:22 pm
by James S Saint
Amorphos wrote:James, surely there was a time prior to Affectance? Like before the big bang. Not to mention other perhaps far greater things than universe, like infinity.

No. The lack of affectance is an impossibility. There could never have been a time when the universe was not infinite in all directions and filled with (made of) affectance. Mass is merely extremely dense affectance and "empty" space is merely extremely thin affectance. There was no beginning and there can be no end of the universe. Relativity works merely because the more dense the affectance, the more compact the distance and time.

Amorphos wrote:Put all things and all personhood in the cosmic blender, and the result is no things and no personhood. Yet that is not nothing but is oneness ~ an emptiness which is one thing. Affectance would surely have something like that at root or within its context?

Affectance IS that "root" substance from which literally ALL physical things are made. All mass, gravitation, electromagnetism, electric charge, light, particles, momentum, inertia, everything is formed of affectance.

It isn't merely a theory. There is no choice at all in the matter. The necessarily infinite universe is made entirely of affectance and nothing else but variation in density and arrangement.

Re: When you sit down, it is the chair rising to you?

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 12:25 am
by Amorphos
There could never have been a time when the universe was not infinite in all directions and filled with (made of) affectance.
+
Affectance IS that "root" substance from which literally ALL physical things are made.


Affectance is not the simplest thing though?, and reality requires that oneness is at base, as two or more instances of anything yields a third sphere in which they inhabit ergo, you always end up at reality as being one, and simplicity comes before complexity. Affectance is a complexity is it not!

Re: When you sit down, it is the chair rising to you?

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 12:50 am
by James S Saint
Amorphos wrote:
There could never have been a time when the universe was not infinite in all directions and filled with (made of) affectance.
+
Affectance IS that "root" substance from which literally ALL physical things are made.


Affectance is not the simplest thing though?

Yes, affectance is the simplest substance. Potential-to-Affect, PtA, is the simplest concept expressed in physical reality (virtually identical to electric potential energy). PtA changing is what forms affectance. And it is necessarily always changing, creating our entire physical reality.

Amorphos wrote:, and reality requires that oneness is at base, as two or more instances of anything yields a third sphere in which they inhabit ergo, you always end up at reality as being one, and simplicity comes before complexity. Affectance is a complexity is it not!

See above.

Re: When you sit down, it is the chair rising to you?

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:01 am
by Amorphos
Yes, affectance is the simplest substance. Potential-to-Affect, PtA, is the simplest concept expressed in physical reality (virtually identical to electric potential energy). PtA changing is what forms affectance. And it is necessarily always changing, creating our entire physical reality.


Is the simplest substance the same as the simplest thing?.. For example, potentiality I assume moves into affect like a curve. That’s a chain of things/facets/principles/information, or a process and a processing set of events. Now all you need is something to be making that process happen, even >if< a bunch of limits can be called infinite and unlimited somehow. Calculus is metaphoric, you could not stretch a finite/limited object into an infinite one, nor squeeze an infinite object into a box of any size. reality must be empty at base for the reasons above [circles within circles]. even if the process of affectance were infinite it still needs some reason why it exists, and what stops nothing from existing.

Re: When you sit down, it is the chair rising to you?

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:26 am
by James S Saint
You seem to be assuming a lot...
Amorphos wrote:
Yes, affectance is the simplest substance. Potential-to-Affect, PtA, is the simplest concept expressed in physical reality (virtually identical to electric potential energy). PtA changing is what forms affectance. And it is necessarily always changing, creating our entire physical reality.


Is the simplest substance the same as the simplest thing?..

Well .. emmm ... yeah. A "thing" is also a substance. A substance is that stuff from which things are made. If it is infinitely divisible, and affectance is, then calling it a substance is far more appropriate (much like "aether").

Amorphos wrote: For example, potentiality I assume moves into affect like a curve. That’s a chain of things/facets/principles/information, or a process and a processing set of events. Now all you need is something to be making that process happen, even >if< a bunch of limits can be called infinite and unlimited somehow.

A "potential" is a situation. An apple hanging on a tree with a stem beginning to break, has the potential to fall. Affectance potential, PtA, refers to the situation which will lead to actual affecting. Since nothing else exists other than the propagation of affect, the only thing standing between an affect's potential and the eventual affect is time. Affects cannot propagate at infinite speed (because that would actually require greater than infinite speed of affecting from point to point). Thus the time it takes for an affect to traverse from point A to point B is the only thing preventing a potential-to-affect from being the actual affect itself. And without that time delay, physical existence could not happen at all because every affect would occur infinitely fast over an infinite distance and the entire universe would be homogeneous (which is the same as non-existence).

Amorphos wrote:Calculus is metaphoric, you could not stretch a finite/limited object into an infinite one, nor squeeze an infinite object into a box of any size.

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

Amorphos wrote: reality must be empty at base for the reasons above [circles within circles]. even if the process of affectance were infinite it still needs some reason why it exists, and what stops nothing from existing.

As explained in this thread, it is logically/mathematically impossible for affectance to ever NOT exist. There is no squeezing or stretching involved.

Re: When you sit down, it is the chair rising to you?

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:40 pm
by Amorphos
Amorphos wrote:Calculus is metaphoric, you could not stretch a finite/limited object into an infinite one, nor squeeze an infinite object into a box of any size.


I don't see what that has to do with anything.


Affectance is the set of all limits [or iterations et al] occurring, no? Each pta having a value. That’s a finite box of any size, set up against the sizeless infinite. In other words, reality and the infinite are greater than the affectance field, ergo affectance is not base. If there are two or more states [even in potential], they must exist within a reality which is greater than them, in that it would be the containing sphere of reality. Affectance is composed of multiple iterations of whatever you wish to name as its integers, particles or whathaveyou, and are hence in a containing reality.
I do except Einstiens theories including the notion of ‘all-time’, and either way, time must exist by the same principles as above and it too must have a in a containing whole. Time and things put together, must then be in a containing reality etc etc.

Re: When you sit down, it is the chair rising to you?

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:02 pm
by James S Saint
Amorphos wrote:
Amorphos wrote:Calculus is metaphoric, you could not stretch a finite/limited object into an infinite one, nor squeeze an infinite object into a box of any size.


I don't see what that has to do with anything.


Affectance is the set of all limits [or iterations et al] occurring, no?

I don't know what that means. :confusion-scratchheadyellow:

Amorphos wrote:Each pta having a value. That’s a finite box of any size, set up against the sizeless infinite. In other words, reality and the infinite are greater than the affectance field, ergo affectance is not base.

I don't understand why you are saying or thinking that. The universe IS the infinite affectance field. There can be no outside or any other physical existence. "Each PtA" means "each point in space". Every point in infinite space has an associated level of Potential-to-Affect its neighboring points. That PtA level could be anywhere from zero to infinite, although cannot be infinitely different than its neighbors.

Amorphos wrote:Affectance is composed of multiple iterations of whatever you wish to name as its integers, particles or whathaveyou, and are hence in a containing reality.

Affectance PtA has level from 0 to infinite without any stair-stepping (in other words, real-numbers apply).

Amorphos wrote:I do except Einstiens theories including the notion of ‘all-time’, and either way, time must exist by the same principles as above and it too must have a in a containing whole. Time and things put together, must then be in a containing reality etc etc.

I really don't understand what you mean by "containing reality". Whatever exists IS the reality. There can be no "container".