In the case of a photon spin, definitely not. The wave is the speed of affect/influence/energy-propagation that propagation speed is self regulated and thus it determines all else, not the other way around.
The propagation of affect is the “Go-spell” that creates all things.
Well, actually I had a slight ulterior motive for that.
“I thought about from where it all came. How from nothingness did all of this universe appear? And then Logic spoke to me and the light shone upon affect and how it matters into all things.”
To exist, something has to exist with respect to something else, “mutual affect/influence”. What other entity could the entire universe as a while exist with respect to? Or did you want to bring God into this?
James: maybe it’s just that “affectance” doesn’t seem to convey action, as in Planck’s constant of action h in E=hf. I quite like affect and effect, but not affectance, because it’s not familiar. I see it’s mentioned in wireless networks though, good old google. The photon spin thing was because it wasn’t clear to Jakob. It can be tricky to pitch things right to get the meaning across without missing out too much or making things too complicated. Looking at your post above, I’d say don’t forget impedance Z0 = √(μ0/ε0).
It’s quite an interesting one. Take the universe as a whole, and ask yourself if it affects anything else. The answer is no, because there isn’t anything else. But the universe does exist. It’s maybe interesting that the entymology of the word existence stems from “to stand out”, see existence. Or maybe not, but I sometimes toy with the idea that we are made of difference. And maybe I should stick to physics.
The Universe is a conceptual construction, our name that denotes everything - except maybe, for the sake of argument, God. In which case, we define a Universe’ which means the Universe plus God - and what does that stand in relation to?
Affectance would actually relate to the “f”, not the “h” in that equation, but I can accept that to some people it might give too much pause.
But to the casual reader, the brakes immediately lockup when anyone presents an equation. Technical readers don’t have very much trouble because they are used to slowly analyzing each sentence. Typically, my writing is too dense at it is, if I casually throw in equations, it gets to be much too dense (requiring serious concentration). Granted if I were trying to convince a skeptical physicist, which is usually where you spend most of your time, I should word things in very technical terms. And if I introduce impedance, I have to justify from where it came and what it truly means.
What I liked most in your rewrite was that in certain instances, you expanding the wording a bit, making it flow much easier.
But don’t get me wrong, I very much appreciate your scrutiny of the wording. As I said, articulation is a talent that I lost years ago. I seriously need a writer who can comprehend exactly what I am trying to say and rewrite it in easier, more eloquent English (and graphics would help a LOT).
The “universe” does NOT “exist”, as odd as that sounds. We typically say that the universe exists because we are thinking that it exists to us or to any other person or object and in that regard, we are right to think that. But we are actually thinking of the person as separate from all else when we make that kind of thought and forget, or often do not realize, that existence merely means to have affect/influence upon something. So very technically speaking, and very precisely, the universe as a whole, actually does NOT exist. It is a metaphysics issue (meta- “beyond” the minds of physicists ).
That is one of those “intellectual masturbation” issues common amongst diehard philosophers, pedantically annoying, and of absolutely zero practical value, yet there t is with an logical answer contrary to intuition.
Yet Farsighted reason for asking the question is relevant.
If The Universe positively exists in the same way that its components exist (i.e. if it is “affectance”), then it must affect something outside of itself.
There are several forms of argument that bring us to this conclusion, not only with RM:AO. The Universe can not both be “a whole” and “all there is”. If the universe is all there is, it must be open ended; i.e. a concept rather than a physical “object” or even situation.
That is how you can know that it is infinite:
Infinite = “open ended”.
It tells of what must have been in order for there to be what is.
It tells of what must be in order to achieve what is yet to be.
Past and future.
Although it would be nice if it could reveal more of the present.
It is a more real science and of use for the same reasons.
There you go again with the frickin’ false dichotomies. As if there is a special degree that only philosophers can get, and physicists, not. A secret metaphysical handshake that only designer ontologists know.
You can turn a physicist into a philosopher in fifteen minutes (if he isn’t already a better philosopher than you), but turning a philosopher into a physicist takes years. If there were ever anything ‘beyond the mind’, that mind would probably belong to a philosopher sooner than a physicist, I’d think.
You oughta see how Hawking puts philosophers on blast in a couple of his older books. He ain’t pulling any punches.
Relevance to what? It certainly has relevance to philosophy, otherwise why even mention it to begin with?
If it were meaningless, your sentence itself would be meaningless since “what has no affect” is exactly what it’s talking about. As long as one can conceptualize what “no affect” is intended to denote, it has a meaning.
True.
From a state of absolute nothingness, there is no affectance.
What does this mean? That in order to think rationally, one must first think “that which has no affect is irrelevant and meaningless”?
I don’t know, you say it is… but what is see is indeed something like a rational metaphysics. You start from a purely rational construct and go on to deduce a whole system without touching the empirical it seems.
With science there is at least a back and forth between theory and practice, where hypothesis is tested against data and revised if needed, which is why it has proven to be usefull, because it tells us something about the world.
Logical deduction conserves truth value, but only that. To get at something true you must first verify with the senses, you need to let some information in… if you start with a mere definition and only rely on deductions and more definitions down the line, you start with something empty and end with something empty. I don’t think the method works.
The open ended whole is the inverse of the self-containing empty set. It is a matter of failure on the part of language.
In any way the universe is whole, it communicates this to itself. In other instances, there is no such thing as a universe, there is only, as Farsight observes, difference. (Affectance requires difference)
Thus RM includes everything about science other than their lack of definitions and lack of resolution debating. RM is more internally consistent and more open for inquiry. Thus RM is more solid and certain, thus “more real science”.
But your surmise that if one begins with definitions instead of empirical sensing, they will go astray, is entirely false propaganda of the age. In fact, if one concludes before he thinks, he is far more likely to reverse rationalize what he chose to believe and thought he saw. He will define his ontology based on what he immediately suspected through perhaps false sensing. Relativity, and far more so quantum physics, does exactly that. They are both rationalizations, not rational deductions.
The whole method and point of magical trickery is to cause a person to believe they see something that they didn’t actually see and from that cause them to deduce and believe something that isn’t true. Yet that is what you are proposing. You are saying, begin by assuming that your senses are perfectly accurate and then decide what exists and what doesn’t. That is the fundamental make of magic.
What I propose with RM is that you choose an ontological structure, make deductions based on that structure that form hypotheses, test the hypotheses, then open it all up to rational debating based upon the definitions originally provided.
An example, the first that I used, was Affectance Ontology based upon the definition of the property of existing;
Rational Metaphysics: Definition ≡ an unambiguous explanation of with which distinct concept a word or phrase is to be associated within a dialog. Affectance Ontology: Affect ≡ to change the properties of another entity Affectance ≡ an amount of subtle affects upon affects or influences upon influences. To Exist ≡ to possess the ability to affect, to cause effect. Existence ≡ that which has affect, the set of all having affect, All affectance
Beginning from there, I can deduce, strictly logically, what must exist (as I have defined existence) on a fundamental level. I can then empirically seek out evidence for or against my conclusions, and also fully explain every detail that I have defined and deduced such that anyone else can debate or propose new evidence as long as they remain logic devoted and retain the definitions. From that point, I discovered, independent of any observation, the necessary existence of sub-atomic particle and their science-observed properties. I also discovered that what they have been calling “forces” do not exist (as they are beginning to understand also).
Anyone else can propose a different set of definitions along with their proposed reasoning and accomplish the same thing based on their own ontology. If the reasoning has remained consistent and verified, every such ontology will be true even though each might have a different convenience of use. Similarly two spoken languages can be perfectly accurate when describing an event even though they don’t sound the same. One language is going to be a little more convenient to use in attempts to describe some things than another. They can all be right yet all be different.
What you probably don’t realize is that what I propose with RM is exactly what has been going on all along anyway but without the recognition of it, thus it has been done crudely and often misled into misunderstandings and trickery.
In physics, as pointed out in other threads, what you now call “Relativity” and “Quantum Physics” are simply a variation of ontology competing for the one most accurate and practical. They both support logical flaws and thus neither can be said to be “true”, because “true” means consistency and the lack of logical flaw. Affectance Ontology is totally logically true and also, so far, I have found no contradicting evidence against it either from scientific observation or from logical debate. On the other hand, relativity and quantum physics disagree on conclusions of each other.
Thus I certainly believe that RM:AO is certainly more sound than its competition. Yet I still offer it to be challenged and will always do so (because that is what RM requires). If it is no longer debatable due to political pressures or whatever, it is no longer Rational Metaphysics. Relativity is no longer allowed to be debated except behind closed doors.
… not merely difference, but “noisy difference” and nothing more.
No it doesn’t, that’s validity, not truth. This is from the logic 101 thread on this site :
There are two conditions that must be satisfied to establish the truth of any argument’s conclusion as a conclusion, however. The argument must be valid, and the premises must all be true (this is also called a sound argument). The logician is concerned only with the first of those conditions. Thus the logician, qua logician, is not concerned with truth per se. The truth of the premises used in an argument must be established, or merely accepted, prior to the argument. And the truth of the conclusion (as a conclusion of the argument at hand), being in part dependent upon the truth of the premises, is similarly of no importance to the logician. Logic is the study of validity, and not of truth.
The senses may not allways be 100% reliable, but it the only thing we have. Doing away with them alltogether is not the solution.
The presumption RM: AO makes is so enormous that it can indeed, I understand, be hard to see it.
The assumption behind affectance is that there is one homogenous type of affectance; i.e. that all affectance applies potentially to all other affectance. This is mere solipsism, reasoned from one particular type of being, i.e. the theory’s father.
In reality, things affect each other in different ways, and in different types of systems.
The error of RM: AO is thus that it simply does not apply to reality, but only to a test-tube variety of reality where all elements are pre-selected so as to fit perfectly to each other.
This is the quintessential presumption behind the scientific method (see “the ontological tyranny”), which RM has ‘purified’, made from a latent into an active error.
I have already explained this in a couple of videos.
[-o<
).