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!
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. 
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. …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.
Are concepts less real than values? Are they not essentially two kinds of information? …in a reality which is not physical and hence the two can be equally real.
A tree is not different to the changes occurring in its mechanisms? Like saying humans are the same as their metabolism or some such thing. A table to its atoms etc?
If you understood what i meant then language [being the fluid thing it truly is] has been effective. I think you did understand what was meant. More importantly, philosophy has to tackle meaning and has over the years constantly redefined it, and with many different languages.
True after you had first answered the proposed issues defining reality entire, otherwise false if those problems cannot be overcome.
Q. Is Affectance infinite or does it have limits?
Q. If it has limits ~ is ‘finite’/physical, what’s beyond it and manifesting it?
A limit must necessarily have something defining its cardinality i.e. Outside of the given limit no matter how great.
So; The Affectance theory >has< physicality and absolutes doesn’t it? And the point still stands. I said ‘assumes’ because its not fact if it cant answer fundamental questions. all-time is relativistic but you don’t believe in relativity. Affectance has no ‘all-time’ if it has always existed, as that would make it eternal and an entirely different entity.
Why don’t you understand my points are they not simple enough? I mean that as an error on my part. Did i fail to explain the points?
_
To me it seems like you are only half reading what I say and responding with half meaningless sentences (primarily due to ignoring the definitions of the words being used). So I have to conclude that there is a serious communication issue.
In RM:AO, they are. But they exist only within the conceptual realm, not in the physical realm.
Information is relative. What is information to one, might not be to another.
Depends on your ontology (obviously very different than mine).
Uh-huh … but since, I don’t …
That is half of the problem.
Meaning is not independent of the language in which it is formulated.
The field of affectance is infinite in variety and expanse. That field, is all physical existence.
Sounds like a meaningless/senseless question.
ok i’ll just assume you contradictingly think that concepts are ‘something’ but aren’t ‘real’.
Do you mean it has infinite qualities but is not infinite in form? Or that it is infinite in form? Physically infinite?
If not then my points stands.
What’s external to it? [i thought i said that lol] what more to reality is there than Affectance?
What is beyond it?
What is before it?
What is after it?
What makes it?
Btw cardinality = limits, and limits are defined by a, what they themselves are, and b, by that which they are not. A line has something either side of it. a box is defined by itself and what it is in.
-why is that senseless?
_
Yep.
Fuck 'em. - well… They’ve got that covered already.
Welcome back Ben … again. 
JSS,
“1) Affectance is the only existence
2) Infinity cannot ever be physically realized
3) Nothingness can never occur or ever have occurred
4) Nothing is infinitely different nor similar to anything else
5) Affectance occurs at finite speed (turning out to be the “speed of light”)”-JSS
#5 How did you arrive at this conclusion?
“Every point of affect must affect the adjacent points else it would not exist to them, thus every point affects every other point either directly or indirectly without exception. There can be no other fundamental existence.”-JSS
Are you saying that energy has no beginning and no end? What about all the unknown types of energy which may negate affectance, canceling each other out, non-existence?