How does rational methaphysics of affectance affect your live?
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.
According to RM:AO “existence is that which has affect”.
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)
The red marked are your presumption errors.
First off, Rational Metaphysics is;
Definitional Logic + Scientific Methodology + Resolution Debating
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.
I suspected that you might make that argument. Again, you presumed too much.
You are speaking of what we currently call “truth”. I was speaking of what English speaking people have always called “being true”. Still today, ask any sailor or carpenter what it means to be “true” and he can tell you that it means to be “precisely on course” (as in “58° true”) or to be “straightly aligned, without discontinuity” (as in cabinets or boards being perfectly aligned). “True” means without what someone would think of as flaw, discontinuity, misalignment, or error => being “valid”.
On the other hand, what we call “truth” means “statements or concepts that are true or in alignment with reality”. Reality and truth are two different, yet hopefully associated, things. Truth is statements, thoughts, or concepts whereas reality is the objective existence independent of any statements or thoughts about it.
Seriously?
Granted, to non-thinking animals, what they sense is all there is, because they do not think … or not such that you can easily discern it. Philosophers think all the time about things that are not obvious to the senses. Physics speaks all the time about things that have never been seen but merely deduced. In fact physics and most of science speaks of almost nothing else.
And beyond that, no one said anything about doing away with observations. All I said was that the idea or concept of what you are trying to observed needs to be defined before you make statements about what you think you have observed. It is insane to speak of what you have seen without at least presuming the definitions of your words. Without definitions, even your statements concerning what you think you have seen are senseless, presumptuous, and often misleading.
To avoid definitions is to spawn deception (a new-age fad).
Countless times, I have stated that RM:AO disavows even the possibility of any homogeneity. It is quite provable (and proven) that true homogeneity cannot ever exist, at all, anywhere. Homogeneity is truly impossible.
Huh??
Affectance is affects-upon-affects. But that has nothing at all to do with solipsism (VO is solipsism). To affect means to cause change, not merely to believe that self is all that exists. One has nothing at all to do with the other. Affectance is objective energy, not merely the subjective thought of it or of self-determined reality.
Again, you are shooting in the dark.
You are getting too used to debating with ignorants. You fail to understand the point.
And yet RM: AO assumes perfect homogeneity of interactive quality.
The homogeneity or objectivity of this quality requires your assumption, your homogenizing interpretation.
It requires that everything that does not comply is disregarded, ignored, proclaimed ‘non-existent’.
I am trying to cast some light in there for you.
Solipsism might be a stretch, but I think what he’s saying is how do you distinguish one affectance from another affectance. We obviously know it is there, but your wording doesn’t actually solve for this. “Affects upon affects” is an equality. Affects upon different affects allows for difference. In this sense, affectance cannot exactly (and perhaps infnitely) equal itself in order to manifest itself.
Far more than you know.
Always a possibility.
“Interactive quality”??
What is that supposed to mean?
If you mean consistency in behavior, you are right. But being consistent is not being homogeneous. To be homogeneous, every affect must affect every other affect the exact, perfectly 100%, same amount. That is impossible.
Again, homogeneity has nothing at all to do with RM:AO other than it being totally disavowed. And anything that is outside the definition of existence is considered non-existent. What alternative would you suggest?
White light is helpful, not black or colored.
Well, if you want to say, “affects upon different affects”, that’s okay with me. I don’t see the difference (pun forgiven).
In RM:AO theory, every affect is an affect upon another affect, one affect changing another. And as it turns out, that is all that the entirely of reality is, nothing else at all. Affectance, the ocean of subtle influences, is the entire universe and everything within it. What you now call “matter” is merely high concentrations of affectance. And what you call “empty space” is extremely low concentration of affectance. It is all quite provable and science actually has no choice but to agree (as much as they would hate to).
You skipped the part about them being perhaps infinitely far apart. That might cause a problem for your theory. You believe infinities can converge and I don’t. So we’re dealing with some inexplicable discrete affectance here. Just like we know it can’t be non-affectance, we know it cannot be infinitely discrete. But for affectance to differentiate itself, it may need to actually be infinite to pull itself away from other affectance, which causes a paradox.
Yes and what is your point. If you meant valid when you said true, (it’s by the way odd that we should use terminology of sailors and carpenters instead of the applicable technical term) the same objection still stands, namely that you only have a self-contained system that may be logically sound, but that doesn’t tell us anything about the world, empty… Shifting arround the designations you give to concepts doesn’t change that.
It’s the only way we have of getting information about the world we live in…
You are doing away with observations in you OP… you even call it rational metaphysics. Where do observations come in?
And concepts that are being researched are defined all the time in science, and philosophy and a number of other disciplines…
Well, I don’t always choose my words perfectly, but the one I chose can’t be said to be wrong. Sorry for any misleading.
But here again, you presume even though it has been explained. You presume that I propose to make a valid ontological construction and then to just leave it there. I don’t do that. I have told you that you first make a valid (aka “true”) ontological construct but then you observationally verify it (aka “scientific method”) and then even beyond that, you keep it open for detailed logical debate (“resolution debating”).
So please don’t presume that I am talking about merely inventing a good sounding story and leaving it there.
It is the only way of getting the current exact situation. It is not the only way you have of learning of the universe or of reality. Merely the fact that you stated what is not possible means that you used thought, not senses. You certainly never sensed the fact that thinking never accomplished the acquisition of information. You thought it (because it was given to you to think).
???
Are you not reading? Or do you have some personal definitions for the words that you are reading?
“Scientific Methodology” means observing and measuring, preferably in a falsifiable way.
- Build the ontology
- Scientifically verify it
- Keep it open for logical argumentation … forever.
That used to be a science requirement, but not any more. Today they presume vague definitions even in the hard sciences and change them from time to time without letting you know. In physics, the word “mass” might mean quite a variety of things. It was only through confusion and arguments that they began distinguishing different kinds of “mass” and in ways that don’t exactly make sense (weight, inertia, rest, frequency, energy,…). But it is not allowed to correct them, else it implies that they were not supreme.
Thinking alone doesn’t yield new information, its just repackaging in new conceptions, tautologies ultimately. Information → data → senses…
You are asking me if i have personal definitions while you use the word ‘true’ for the concept ‘valid’? What does meta-physics meant to you?
Put the words metaphysics and rational together in a context of philosophy and i think i’m perfectly justified in thinking that what you are saying fits in the wider historical philosophical debate of empiricism vs rationalism.
But it’s not only the fact that you name it rational metaphysics, it’s also the method you are using that reminds me of for instance the rationalist god-proofs. Starting from the most abstract definition, deducing a whole bunch of stuff from the definition only (as if something new is revelealed that way) and then stipulating more things by definition…
You make some vague references to science, but it’s entirely unclear to me how affectance and the things you say about is, has been verified by data.
And even if i would grant you that it is all scientifically verified, the order of your method still seems backwards to me. We start with things we observe, and then name and define them… I just don’t see how you can just start with definitions out of thin air.
I have no real way of verifying this claim, so i’ll leave it as it is…
I agree.
There is a high probability that the well defined theory of a non-corrupted human is more true than the theory of a corrupted human who is called “scientist” and depends on the money of other corrupted humans.
It certainly can for those who know how to do it.
How would you observationally answer the question, “What does it mean to exist?” Science cannot answer that question. It is entirely a definitional metaphysics question. No one can see if the answer is true. One has to deduce and understand the answer.
That is because it is for thinking people.
Of course You don’t see it. But that is what makes your mind someone else’s play-toy. You watch the magic show and then deduce that the observed magical powers come from genetic mutations. 
And btw;
Rational means “logical steps toward a chosen goal”.
Metaphysics means “beyond-physicality”, “the principles that physicality obeys”.
RM is different than other types of metaphysics because it is entirely logic and rationality based rather than speculative and superstitious based (with or without scientific verification). Both relativity and quantum physics are metaphysics ontologies. But they are not entirely rational. Quantum physics is really close to being entirely superstition. And you can scientifically verify a superstition.
Science alone can never tell if anything is true, only that it hasn’t been proven false … yet.