Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

No, once again.
Affectance is the fundamental substance of all “things”. But affectance is not locations. Due to the time it takes for any one affect to propagate from one location to another, there is ZERO effect from that one affect until sufficient time passes. Propagation and resultant Effect involves more than merely scalar qualia issues.

And why should I lie to Him?
Are you not capable of reading and understanding what I have stated several times about what is or isn’t “OFF TOPIC”? ANY reference to ME or to YOU, is OFF TOPIC.

“Ethics”???
You are no where even close to the whole ethics issue within RM:AO. Ethics is about how people “should” (for their own sake) behave toward others in society. Within the curriculum of RM:AO, that topic is a 3rd year course, a “303” type of course (if you are familiar with university curriculum numbering). You haven’t made it through “101” because you want to lecture before you learn.

What “infinity” means is a small part of merely the metaphysics of the PHYSICS ontology (only an analogy to the sociology and psychology). It is more merely about the language being used, having nothing at all to do with reality, merely the efforts to describe it => proper language for public use. “Infinity” means “limitless”. So use “limitless” or “unlimited” in place of the word “infinity” and see if your statements still make reasonable sense.

But this is not a thread on English, spelling, and grammar.

… but there is within the concept of “arrogance”.
And realize, that I said, “what is needed …”. … for the sake of living better than you are.

dup.

Relative to zero any existent is limitless. I never said affectance was locations, I said that if you say affectance is everything or to humor you everything or to humor you every existent , then zero is nonexistent. You seem to have a hard time wrapping your head around the idea that relative to zero, EVERY existent is infinite in existence.

Yeah… you’d be a professor I sighed when I saw lecturing and you’d flunk me for being right. Same shit different day.

You made it personal as well by the way.

Well, see, there you go. You, no doubt due to serious rejection and ego issues, proclaim that you are unquestionably right despite someone being a “professor” disagreeing with you. That is largely what you, yourself, identified as being “ODD”. Have you ever thought about what causes ODD? I bet you could figure it out (although …).

Well, okay. I did largely “make it personal” (even though I am sure that you really were the first to say “you” … but I am not going to go check). More importantly, the reason that I made it personal is that I give a shit. In your real life, things matter far more than they do here. This site, like most others, is merely a “almost dream” sort of thing. It is somewhat of a game, largely merely imagining and thinking, but with the participation of other people. Your real life, wherein people can physically touch you, is another issue. The hope is that what you pickup from the game, might help you in the real world.

So in reality, it is you who “should” (for sake of your own good) thank people like Ussicore, Carleas, myself, and various others for their response to whatever you say, because it, in a very harmless ways, all relays to you what real people might be thinking behind your back in your REAL life. I, personally, accept it that way (even though I know that the average here isn’t the average there).

In that one sense, I really do appreciate your participation in this thread. You really do tell me what someone, perhaps many people, might think concerning what I say and in very seldom, but real cases, inform me of my actual mistakes. But in your case, the reverse doesn’t seem to be true. You seem to be ignoring what people are saying in response to your assertions. You appear to be defeating yourself (even though, admittedly, one could say the same of me … although I have my reasons). You keep trying merely to defend your stance, ignoring why it is that anyone is arguing with you. You have been fooled into thinking that anyone who is correct should be accepted and loved. That isn’t the real world. And that is what people have been relaying to you. And now I am spelling it out for you … even though … it could NOT be more … OFF TOPIC.

Well you’re right, that was extremely personal… however, I think it’s safe to say from knowing you, that your frustration also lies with people not liking you for being right. We agree on a lot of things James, that’s why I said Touche to you in the last post, or post before. We even have some of the same language to describe things. So we both consider ourselves very correct people who don’t receive the commesurate response from society, and I think what we disagree upon is actually quite minimal.

I mean honestly James, how many people in the world figure out that if everything is exactly the same it is nothing at all, and build a philosophy from it. You and I are VERY connected, whether you like it or not. And I agree that Uccisore and Carleas have both helped to hone my thoughts… even if Carleas is the more congenial (you use the term cordial) of the two.

I thought that I would add this issue to this thread considering that the Affectance theory depended on the impossibility of absolute homogeneity or of nothingness.

Reality must contain the infinite as the cardinality of any finite resolution to the matter [inc affectance] will always be self-limiting. …it would not be able to define the whole or otherwise an entirety we could call reality [whats before, after, or around it etc].

The only way to resolve the issue is to sew infinities together in patterns e.g. How a fractal could turn infinite fields of colour [as a metaphor] into shape and form. That would be two infinities; the spatial [emptiness/nothingness] and the informing [fractal formula] infinities. The universe we could think of as the/an eye of that storm if you will.

Creation in any sense has the problem concerning its ultimate causality ~ what came before and so forth.
P.s. A finite explanation assumes God is not infinite.

P.p.s. What on earth would affectance look like?! What’s all around it, or outside of it etc

_

What the affectance in an ultra small portion of “empty” space would look like, IF you could actually see electromagnetic fields is this;

And on a much larger scale, hiding most of the surrounding affectance, a sub-atomic particle forming would look something like this;

Graphically looking like this;

You are living in a noisy soup of which you are a part of the noise.

My personal take on it all:

Jack is back!
:banana-ninja:

James S Saint

Sure thing but i was referring to the big picture; what would all of it look like? How can it not ultimately be infinite if it is what reality is?
What’s the cause?

Just look around you. That is exactly what it looks like in reality.

It could be thought of in many ways;
Nothing can be what it isn’t.
Nothing is possible until something is impossible.
Infinity cannot be sequentially reached.
No physical thing can be what it is and remain as it is.

It is because of any or all of those things that the physical universe has and will always exist.
As Moses put it, “It is what it is”.

Actually, those were from Jacqueline and Anime. :D/

James S Saint

Yes but i don’t know what that looks like either. :slight_smile: With Affectance i imagine a shapeless mass of changing particles, but if i perceptually pull out from that there’s a greater reality, and whatever shape Affectance is would remain a limit of some kind?

Isn’t there a class of things which are not Affectance [e.g. God, law/principle, conscience, mental qualia, infinity, concepts and experienced information etc], thus it is not a description of what reality entire is.

Like a soundwave and the music we hear?

Or; possibility is a human construct reality itself doesn’t have.

Contradicts the first statement* [sry].

_

???
Are you blind?

“Greater reality”? Such as?

The physical universe is made entirely of Affectance and nothing more. But there is a “Conceptual/Divine Realm” (for ideas, angels, perfect concepts,…) that is separate from the physical. Affectance Ontology maintains two specific “realms of existence”; Physical Realm and Conceptual Realm.

Close enough.
More like “A is A and not not-A”.

Although true also, unrelated.

No, it doesn’t. It can’t remain as it is.

James S Saint

Now zoom out of what you are observing and keep zooming out, ~ now do you see what i mean!

Reality [& or God]. + above + can Affectance describe the whole of reality?..

So reality contains two realms and is therefore a realm/world containing two worlds. Two sphere’s within a greater sphere! Affectance is one of those sphere’s and thus is not a description of reality entire. = there is a class of things which are not Affectance.

Is the outer sphere divine or infinite or what is it?

Ps, fair enough ~ with your further deductions.

_

Ummm … no, sorry.

There is the changing and the non-changing. The changing is the physical. The non-changing is conceptual yet still contains non-changing affectance in the form of dependent sub-components. For example, if the definition of a straight line was to change then a square, having four such lines, would also change. So the affecting is more of a “potential-to-affect” or PtA, as described in the introduction to RM:AO, except in the Conceptual Realm, such potential are never realized and nothing ever actually changes. A circle is always a circle, regardless of what it is called.

These two realms are basically the same as found in the I Ching and Plato, as well as very many less explicit scriptures throughout history. The difference being that in RM:AO, they are explicitly proven as the construct of all existence.

So the Ontology covers all changing things and all non-changing things. What else could there be other than a mix of the two? And the changing things are the physical universe. The non-changing things are basically everything else.

The following is an equation for every portion of reality, both physical and not (although “space” is defined differently for the Conceptual realm);

If by “outer sphere”, you mean the Conceptual Realm (historically called the “Divine Realm”), I think there are a variety of ways that the concept of infinity could apply. But realize there are no physical distances, so there is no infinite length involved except as one of the element of the realm, merely another concept.

@James
james…

Right, then you have two sphere’s within a greater sphere. Information [s1]and observing objects [s2]which aren’t physical because reality is all three sphere’s.

Something which is both changing and non-changing [everything]. In other words, there aren’t three sphere’s or any such duality, but my device [3sphere’s] exposes the fact that reality is not physical, objects can never be absolute, and perhaps information itself is equally non-absolute.
The Affectance theory assumes physicality and absolutes doesn’t it? If all the ‘quanta’ in Affectance are primary they would need to be physical/absolute i.e. to be ‘Affecting’ and not effecting and effected.
If the nature of things at base [of all three sphere’s] are non physical, we can begin with more subtle entities like ‘observers’ and ‘energy behaviours’. These having multiple spatial and relative entangled positions at once, and acting with principles and patterns in an infinity.

I doubt if any of this makes your maths wrong, but your philosophical position is being questioned i think. That is assuming it to be one where relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong, or otherwise replaced with Affectance theory? Oh and lets not forget that God is the big solid object at the base of absolute solid objects manifest of absolute meaning [the word of God]!?

I agree there are no ‘distances’ of infinite length, the very idea of ‘length’ involves a finite duration in time or area/distance. If QM and relativity are true there are equally no >absolute< ‘physical distances’.

_

I can’t think of anything that is both changing and non-changing.

You are violating definition. Anything physical is necessarily real, else it isn’t really physical.

The values of all quantum particles are constantly changing and yet they remain the same object in the world [e.g. an electron itself is a constant but its values change]] .

One has to violate definition otherwise we’d all be reading history. :slight_smile: …and right the physical is not really physical because reality isn’t, it is something real which is not defined by one sphere e.g. Universe. Where we define physicality as that which is of the universe, and reality as including but more than that, then reality cant logically and reasonably be physical.

& the other queries?

The values concerning an object are always changing. The object doesn’t change in concept. The concept of the object is not the specific values pertaining to it. A tree that grows is still a tree. The growth is the change of it.

Different things; concept and value, one changing and one not changing.

When you violate definition, you are no longer talking to me. Without agreed definition, communication cannot take place and all sentences are meaningless.

That isn’t the way that I define “physical universe”. By definition, that which exists is that which affects. Anything that affects is what exists. And as it turns out, all affecting through time (thus all that changes through time) is what the physical universe is.

I have a hard time trying to figure out most of what you are trying to say.

No, it doesn’t “assume”. RM:AO declares fixed definitions of those concepts (as mentioned above). Nothing is assumed.