Reality - Version 0.1

The implications of interaction is that observation changes intersubjective reality for everyone and not just a single individuals perspective.

James

It is likely that I will come back over parts of this again - but for now I want to make a few comments on what I have read and reignite the conversation.

After this we can come back to the language substrata as I think it is a valuable tool for leaping into the depths of RM:AO - we can further the concept of affectance density fields as this seems like the more counter intuitive thing for me - I will say however I recognize where we have touched on this already - I appreciate that RM:AO is actually pretty simple but it is always good to have plenty of philosophical substance underlying the physical principles - that way the physics can be honed when the time comes.

GToE - I like it. I appreciate that the GUT and ToE are used merely for Physics models - but it certainly helps me to have some sort of reference point to work from. What I see at the heart of Physics, is that we are working with two interchangeable factors - energy and matter - so I see the benefit to taking a further leap into one factor id est “affectance” and an arrangement of it, “PtA”. For me it even becomes somewhat spiritual in nature.

Yes - arguing other peoples theories in favor of the person they are interacting with seems pretty typical to me. Open eyes allow for falsehoods and falsehoods allow for refined truths. Where there are good results the proverbial “finger” is pointing at the truth but that does not mean it is pointing at the actual truth - it could be the truth with a missing factor or perhaps one too many factors. I like RM:AO because it narrows things down quite considerably and gives a fresh starting point to analyze from the bottom up any argument but even from the top down things can be analyzed with RM:AO in mind to sift out inaccuracies.

This is actually where I am coming from - amazingly enough - and being taught from an early age these things become ingrained so it is hard to see things any other way. The current paradigm to me is more about approximations rather than absolute truth. Just the same I am sure the mathematics if used in a more pure sense is able to quantify RM:AO. Reality is what it is all about though so if we seek to understand it properly then we can not afford to live the previously mentioned falsehoods forever - flaws are flaws, no matter how negligible. I can see what you mean by many potential ontologies and RM:AO being a different mindset.

Military Science aside, I think that RM:AO is able to help the philosopher come to more accurate conclusions about what he/she is thinking.

Could you elaborate on Sociological “Impedance Matching” for me? Given how significant a concern it is in AO . . .

:-k

The brain has been kick started again . . .

AO uses the term “impedance matching” exactly as it is used in audio and electronic engineering. Every transfer of effort, affect, or energy from anything to anything else is met with at least a tiny impediment. That impediment is the inherent cause of time and why it is that literally all actions require time. Truly instantaneous change is impossible.

Social movements, intentional or not, constitute propagations of affect, energy, or effort. Every social movement is met with at least a tiny degree of impedance to the change. And that unavoidable impediment demands time for the transfer to take place.

The term “impedance matching” refers to ensuring that just the right amount of force to change is applied, not too much and not too little, such as to allow for the least distortion and most efficient and complete transfer of energy, effort, or affect. Every change in impedance during a propagation causes a mismatch between the flowing effort causing the change and the inherent impedance to the change. That mismatch distorts the “signal” - distorts the precision of the information or effort being relayed. And then it also demands that more energy be provided in order to maintain the complete propagation.

When changes are pushed too hard, there are residual consequences that might include a “backfire” or “kickback” effect (as the liberal hand of the recent USA election demonstrated). Push too much to the left and life will push back too much to the right and vsvrsa. The lesson being, “Don’t try too hard. Give it time, else it will take even more. Be precise and patient”. And equally, if too little effort is made, all of the energy is used up without sufficient results.

Such is a fundamental nature and principle of the universe, a true “god”; “All things take time and energy”. The sacrifice to that particular god is to supply just the right amount of energy and patiently wait just the right amount of time before expecting results. The punishment for offending that god is a degree of chaos, confusion, frustration and potentially death depending upon the degree of mismatching and circumstance. To pray to that god is to study and attend to what changes are being provoked and what impediments reside in the path - to look before one leaps - to clear the path before one attempts the path - to accept responsibility for results - to earn one’s progress - to not want for what isn’t to be had - to attempt only what can be accomplished - to live the rules of “afflate engagement”. Some have called it the distinction between going to Heaven or going to Hell. :wink:

But would you reflect on why it happened in the first place?

Some might do THAT and some might simply sweep it under the carpet. Can you even imagine THAT? LOL

And exactly what leads you to the conclusion that I had not already considered that long before the encounter began? :-k

I asked “Would you”, James.
My post was simply based on your above response - “Don’t worry about it”. THAT response appears to have drawn things to a conclusion without any thought or consideration.

Hi

I could visualize an infinity and universe then consider them to be distinctive, if not completely apart from one another. Then to get universe from ‘metaspace’/infinity, something has to do the impossible, ~ so like a God then. When we look at these things in their own right, the infinite is only the infinite and the finite is only the finite. Thing is, I could equally consider a metaphoric sphere, one which I could extend lines from. Those lines could be of any length infinite or not, and with sets thereof. So now you can have one object which can be both infinite and finite!

There can’t be two or more things at root, ergo whatever the ultimate nature of reality is, it is one thing. So I don’t see how you can get ‘God’ from that.

1 is 1, but god + us + things/universe is many, and if we change our definition of God to suit, it is no longer God et al.
_

Inter subjective does not automatically mean everyone will think exactly the same about what they observe
They might and in general probably do but there is alway the possibility that someone will think differently
Also inter subjective reality is not reality as such so one should avoid confusing the map with the territory

James

Now where were we? I am just going to throw something out there - I hope it makes sense - if not I will go back over it.

Oh no . . . I did not take it as condescending at all. I was actually hoping you would not take my response as rude in any way.

Yes, I really like this idea . . . there is a small gap in communications I have noticed.

I understand the topography of force vectors. I have contemplated what you are saying about cloud density and I will make a response soon.

I am curious about dispersion through 3D space. You say the affectance waves are always longitudinal - I am having a hard time trying to visualize dispersion. Affectance itself must undergo dispersion in any direction - even in your models I see dispersion - is this a language substrata problem? The coalesced aggregates are what is confusing me here; I don’t see a minimum size to the aggregate elements, provided there is one.

Let me know if I need to rethink this - it has been a week since I last looked at anything.

James

For your information: Most of my last post was legit.

The paragraph down the bottom I was poking a stick - I am sure you knew that.

It was indeed my use of the word carrier that messed things up.

You are making sense but as you say the mind can become infected. Once the ambiguity is removed then all is fine. After reading over this post again - it is starting to make more sense as is usually the case.

I have also been busy with other things. Including things away from this forum - that cannot be helped - my living circumstance is not so great at the moment.


OK, I think I get this.

Originally I was asking about the sociological side - but I see that the implications here go much deeper. The “Truly instantaneous change is impossible.” I will have to think about more. But I think I get your gist.

I can see this quite clearly.

What do you mean here by signal?

I take it you are being figurative about energy being used up.

I like this illustration. :wink:

I do have more questions to go over with you. If you could just help me clear the signal thing up that would be great. I might not be reading it right - it seems that we do use language a little differently.

.
Sorry, for some strange reason, my eyes keep overlooking this thread … Hmmm…

No, affectance does not “always” disperse as it propagates, but it would eventually disperse. When propagating toward a higher density ambient gradient, affectance puffs, pulses, or waves actually converge. This is why the concerns of Relativity take place. Time and distance measurements “compress” as the ambient affectance density increases (such as coming closer to a large mass or into “dark-matter”). Light photons (large puffs of affectance) largely maintain their size as they propagate although eventually disperse due to the uneven distribution of ambient affectance through which the photon must travel for trillions of miles.

There is no minimum size of affectance afflates. An afflate is merely a small oblate portion of an affectance field isolated merely for study. An afflate is not a actual particle or entity and any ultra-minuscule portion can be chosen. By choosing millions of afflates and watching their “natural” behavior, the behavior of affectance fields, subatomic particles and their formation can be observed. It can be seen that while a puff of affectance cloud passes through unevenly distributed ambient affectance, the puff begins to disperse (the afflates begin to separate more). And as that same puff begins to enter a more dense region of space, the afflates that make up the puff begin to converge. In the long run, the puff will very gradually lose more than it gains and become merely a bit of the “cosmic background radiation”, CBR.

…Sympathies.

“Signal” is merely a euphemism for “information” or “effort” or “whatever is propagating”.

Perhaps we use the word “energy” differently too. To me “energy” means “effort” or “work”, whether from life or anything else.

I hope you don’t mind James, I saw this in another thread and thought I would make a copy so as not to forget it.

Forgive me if I am wrong but I could somehow see RM:AO here too hence why I copied it.

Continue awakening, and you will see RM:AO in literally everything.

James

This may seem pedantic to you but it is extremely important to me that we keep things very clear.

I can not use the word virtual in the context of our conversation unless it relates to the word divine. Because virtual is also in the sense ‘possessing certain virtues’. Virtual space is not perfect like metaspace as I understand it from your paragraph and my understanding. Virtual Space in the context of computing and physics can not be perfect owing to lack of precision leading to perfection. Virtual Space to me lives in our realm inside of our devices or on paper or what ever other medium you can think of to portray it. We transcend the virtual space in that regard but the metaspace would transcend even us. A lot of ambiguity because if in the sense ‘possessing certain virtues’ then to me virtues belong in metaspace. Virtual as it relates to the divine would suggest lack of corruption - as it applies to our realm I suggest with corruption.

In the context of computing or physics however I would be happy to use the word virtual. Due to this I read your paragraph as follows:

To me, the word “metaspace” refers to the conceptual space, usually Euclidean space. God, and all “angels” are concepts that “exist in” the “Divine” or “Conceptual Realm” of ideas, concepts, and/or principles that govern physical behavior.

I would say that our understanding of totality is incomplete; we can however understand it in a relative sense. We use our representations to understand totality in a relative sense. Would you disagree?

Maybe I get too hung up on hierarchy but the Seraphim are below GOD - Metaspace is above Virtual Space. Failing this I do believe that we can still work in such a way that brings about clarity in a relative sense.

Indeed.

I am sure you are correct. So far I have no reason to doubt you.

Well emmm, okay.

Virtual == not identical to but possessing the essential qualities or virtues.
Metaspace == idealized or conceptual space.

Both imply attributes that are not physically real in detail, but I’m not married to either word. I don’t own the language.

Perhaps we disagree on the word “understand”. :wink:

To “under-stand” is not to know every detail, but rather to have a fundamental grasp upon which details and particulars gain grounding and relevance, a conceptual foundation and footing. RM:AO reveals an infinitely precise foundation upon which the details and particulars of any given real situation can be understood. Precisely what you mean by “totality” is not clear to me. I am certain that there are an infinity of particulars within the totality of the universe that RM:AO doesn’t reveal or describe. RM:AO is about the fundamental form, make-up, or under-standing of all existence (an “ontology”). Whether the Moon is made of cheese or cholesterol wouldn’t be something that RM:AO would directly reveal.

Both RM and separately AO are “seraphims” relating to “GOD”.

… if you like.

Our version of understanding is not too disparate. I think we can compare easily. Let us start with totality.

I totally agree with you here by way of what we can not imagine yet.

I am not so certain though that RM:AO doesn’t describe these particulars. I understand that it may not be able to reveal the said particulars.

Let me build a theme for you before finishing with my own interpretation of how RM:AO fits in to the grand scheme of things.

Because I feel lazy at the moment I pasted the following from Wikipedia. I will say however that this is a great representation of what I mean.

Totality and Infinity - Start

Emmanuel Levinas in his work: Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority

The Other

Levinas advances the thesis that all ethics derive from a confrontation with an other. This other, with whom we interact concretely, represents a gateway into the more abstract Otherness.

The distinction between totality and infinity divides the limited world, which contains the other as a material body, from a spiritual world. Subjects gain access to this spiritual world, infinity, by opening themselves to the Otherness of the other. For example:

To approach the other in conversation is to welcome his expression, in which at each instant he overflows the idea a thought would carry away from it. It is therefore to receive from the Other beyond the capacity of the I, which means exactly: to have the idea of infinity. (p. 51)

Presence

Levinas places heavy emphasis on the physical presence involved in meeting the other. He argues that only a face-to-face encounter allows true connection with Infinity, because of the incessance of this type of interaction. Written words and other words do not suffice because they have become past by the time the subject perceives them. That is: they have fallen into the register of totality.

Jacques Derrida, in “Violence and Metaphysics,” takes Levinas to task for this assumption, arguing characteristically that writing might be at least as sacred as speech.

Totality and Infinity - Finish


As it relates to the Absolute - Start

In philosophy, metaphysics, religion, spirituality, and other contexts, the Absolute is a term for the most real being. The Absolute is conceived as being itself or perhaps the being that transcends and comprehends all other beings.

While there is agreement that there must be some fundamental reality, there is disagreement as to what exactly that might be. For example, some theist philosophers argue that the most real being is a personal God. Some pantheist philosophers argue that the most real being is an impersonal existence, such as reality or awareness. Others (such as perennial philosophers) argue that various similar terms and concepts designate to the same Absolute entity. Atheist, agnostic, and scientific pantheist philosophers might argue that some mathematical property or natural law such as gravity or simply nature itself is the most real being

As it relates to the Absolute - End


My Own Interpretation - Simply put: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

The way I see it RM:AO helps us to explain everything as opposed to nothing; this would include the conceptual and the physical.

Also taken from Wikipedia: Everything (or every thing), is all that exists; the opposite of nothing, or its complement. It is the totality of things relevant to some subject matter. Without expressed or implied limits, it may refer to anything. The Universe is everything that exists theoretically, though a multiverse may exist according to theoretical cosmology predictions. It may refer to an anthropocentric worldview, or the sum of human experience, history, and the human condition in general. Every object and entity is a part of everything, including all physical bodies and in some cases all abstract objects.

Whether you see it or not I am saying that I believe totality is all of the above and more and RM:AO is able to help us understand that totality. This is the prime reason why RM:AO is special to me . . . Now despite what I believe I am still able to come to a more complete understanding of RM:AO.

As surreptitious57 says: Agree or disagree it makes no difference to me.

:laughing:

In any case and no matter what, with regards to RM:AO: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

Quick Reference Text
written by James S Saint.

[size=85]So that I do not have to search through the thread for some things.
I have also attempted an order for the text.[/size]

Meta
The word “metaspace” refers to the conceptual space, usually Euclidean space. God, and all “angels” are concepts that “exist in” the “Divine” or “Conceptual Realm” of ideas, concepts, and/or principles that govern physical behavior.

Euclidean space is an ontological choice that can be chosen differently, such as Minkowski’s space or Einstein’s “spacetime”. Each of those are metaspace concepts.

The triangle, circle, and square are also a part of that Divine or Conceptual Realm of “perfect” entities. So for me, the “Metaspace” is virtually the same thing as the Conceptual Realm within which God reigns with principle or fundamental affect. The Metaspace is the very concept of 3D space, not the physical space itself (which only exists due to the infinite amount of affectance). In a sense, affectance causes physical space.

God is the most fundamental, underlying principle causing the physical universe to exist, aka “First/Prime Cause”. And since God is an eternal entity (conceptual realm) and a cause, what is being caused must also be eternal, the physical universe.

The “Prime Principle” governing affect is simply, “Nothing can be what it isn’t” (Aristotle - “Dialectic”, aka “Logic”), “It is what it is” (Hebrew), “I am that which is” (Moses), or the ever popular, “I Am that I Am” (modern interpretation of Torah and the OT).

In reference to God, there is the general behavior or principle called “God” and there is the actual concurrent situation called “God”. The concurrent situation throughout the entire universe is always enacting the general principle called “God”. Therefore that general principle must physically exist at all times and in all locations throughout the entire universe. That conclusion can’t be rationally avoided.

There are times when a concept or an abstract principle is being physically enacted. During those times, the meta-concept and the physically real unite. God is one example of the union of the physical reality of God and the meta-concept of God. The Conceptual/Divine Realm, though a separate category, is not entirely exclusive of physical objects.

The entire physical universe is made of nothing but the fundamental affect, affect-upon-affect, aka an infinite field of “Affectance”.

The “fundamental affect” is “affect-upon-affect”, the fundamental substance of the entire physical universe, an affect being altered by another affect. And it is governed by a Prime Principle which requires that no affect can ever be instantaneous or take zero amount of time (which is the result of infinity (as infA or H) always being less than infinity² (infA² or H²). Time, being defined as the measure of relative change (in this case, relative to other affecting). Affecting (aka “light in a vacuum”) propagates at a particular speed because it can do no other (“Let there be light” - “propagation of affect”).

Both RM and separately AO are “Seraphim” relating to “GOD”.

Spirit
The scriptural word “spirit” merely refers to “behavior”. Anywhere a particular behavior arises, the same “spirit” appears (just an issue of definition of the words). The eternal portion of a person is in two forms, “soul” and “spirit”. The soul is merely the conceptual definition of the person, their conceptual essence (e.g. “a good person who likes fishing and chasing hot women”).

All concepts are always eternal, thus all souls are eternal. A perfect circle is always what a perfect circle is and any particular kind of person is always that particular kind of person. A person can change which kind they are until the person’s body dies. Then they are forevermore whatever they last were.

Spirits are a little different in that a spirit, a behavior, can come and go. A spirit is physical and literally moves about (and yes some form of body is required). That is where you get those ghost stories. A “ghost” is a “ghe-host”, a “spirit host”, or “the behavior that occupies the body” and in computers would be their “programming”. These days, you are more likely to hear of it as “an attitude”. Behaviors and attitudes pop up all over and wheresoever one of them reflects a familiar tone, therein lies a familiar spirit, perhaps of one once loved (or hated). The universe can never be totally void of any spirit that has ever been, nor of any that will ever be, thus in a mathematically provable sense, everyone’s spirit shall always be eternal. The question is within what environment will they struggle (aka “Heavenly or Hellish”)?

Mankind
To govern is to limit behavior. The name Ahdam (aka Adam, the purported first governor of Mankind), means “limiting random behavior” or “damming up the flow of chaotically free spirit”.

Memory and History
A memory is merely the residue of a perception. It has physical existence in that it affects the physical brain and mind. But with every physical anything, there is also an associated concept. The concept always remains the same concept, but the physical memory eventually falls to entropy.

There is a real history, a perceived history, and proposed history. They are seldom the same. The actual past does not physically exist, rather the past forms a residue that is the present as the present forms a residue to become the future.

In everything you do, you are forming the future and displacing the past.

For my own benefit:

[size=85]Emmanuel Levinas in his work: Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority[/size]

To approach the other in conversation is to welcome his expression, in which at each instant he overflows the idea a thought would carry away from it. It is therefore to receive from the Other beyond the capacity of the I, which means exactly: to have the idea of infinity.

Written words and other words do not suffice because they have become past by the time the subject perceives them. That is: they have fallen into the register of totality.

Still I ponder: Writing might be at least as sacred as speech.

James

What are your thoughts on how RM:AO affects ethics?

I don’t think that “affects ethics” is exactly the right terminology. RM:AO lays out an indisputable foundation for ethics. I seriously doubt that anything will ever exceed that foundation.

In rational thought, ethics is about the best rules concerning social interaction. And the “best rules” involve the goals of the individuals involved in the society. And those goals have no option but to be MIJOT (even though the participants might not be aware of it). RM:AO merely points out that in order to achieve that goal, the proper amount of give and take must be maintained for as long as possible and with all things considered (no small task, else would have been accomplished millennia ago).