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?
First, a clarification on (1): Infinity can already be present in physical existence, but cannot be reached or achieved from less than infinity. The universe is necessarily infinitely large, but could never have begun as less than that.
The resolve to (5) involves a little bit of math, but not much. So let me explain some terms…
When I say that an affect is traveling, I am saying that the potential (“PtA”) at every infinitesimal point along its path is being affected (raised or lowered) and there are an infinity of those points. Within the ontology, there is nothing at all to slow the speed of affecting of each point by its adjacent point, thus it must be affecting at a limitless speed (“infinite”). And we can call that speed “infA m/s” (just to give it a name with which we can work).
I have arbitrarily used “m/s”, meters per second, as the units of measure merely for sake of the explanation and because it is a common unit of measure for speed. And I can divide one meter into an infinity of segments, again using the term “infA” portions of a meter for each segment. So what we have is:
Each infinitesimal point/segment along the path is being affected:
• At infA m/s speed (“infinite speed”), and
• There are InfA number of points/segments every meter (an infinity of points to be affected).
The issue is that each point must be affected in sequence from the beginning of a meter to the end of that meter. And that means that an affect must pass through an infinity of points, infA, in order to get to the end of the meter. This inspires the notion called “Zeno’s Paradox”. If infA points must be traversed, the only way to do it is with an infA speed. And in that case, we have:
infA m/s divided by infA segments
(infA m/s) / infA = 1 m/s
That is how you get a finite quantity from infinite events - an infinity divided by the same cardinality (size) of infinity yields a finite number. But note that I chose one “meter” arbitrarily for sake of the explanation. At this point in the build of the ontology, we don’t really know what length would be appropriate. But also at this point, we don’t really care because the reasoning would be the same regardless of the length we chose. And the result is always going to be a finite speed for propagation.
Much later, after we discover what light actually is, we find that this speed is actually the speed that Science has been eluding to as the “speed of light in a vacuum”. But at this point, we only know that the speed of affect is a finite value that we can declare to be 1 of some unit as yet to be defined (in contemporary physics, it would be “1 c”, but we can’t know that yet).
I am not saying anything about “energy” because that is not one of my words and thus is not well defined. I was taught that the word “energy” refers to “ability to do work”, but some people today wish to argue with that. To affect means to cause change which in turn means to do work, so to me, “potential to affect” and “amount of energy” are really the same concept, but I can’t use that because the word “energy” isn’t mine to declare.
There is a similar issue with the word “aether” and “akasha”. There are presumptions concerning the words “aether” and “akasha” and they aren’t my words, so I can’t say that they are wrong about them. But I can say that “affectance” is what they were trying to talk about, but simply didn’t understand what affectance (or their aether and/or akasha) is and thus how it should be expected to behave.
Affectance is knowable. “Energy” and “Aether” are not, merely because they refuse to define those words adequately.
JSS,
Okay, today has been rough pour moi. Seems like I’ve been waiting all day for you to help me clarify a lot. I know in some ways you are old school and in others you are not which hopefully will allow me to stab around at ideas that “bother” me.
To me, reality simplified is made entirely of varying types of energy at varying speeds producing all objects.
From what I’ve read so far about RM:AO hinges on the potential to affect; affect being change, but how many different affects are there potentially? Existence is not one potential, one affect. Is change the best identifier?
Crap, and the rollercoaster is cresting, everyone start screaming…now!
Also struggling with the idea that logic dictates logic. I have a deep seated issue with reasoning inside the framework that is current logic. Logic was set up to acknowledge life in the easiest of terms which doesn’t necessarily mean correct or actual.<—This is my latest stab!
James, you showed up…sucker! 
