My question to James has been, since 2010, and incessantly for years, how does one infinitesimal of affectance affect the next one?
The only answer I ever got was: it just does, because it is affectance.
James has given a name to existence, then took that name as a mathematical Constant, then juggled with some standard deviations, and figured peaks to be particles, because they stand out so manifestly in his graph.
Its absolute hogwash.
It is what jugglers do.
What does RM explain in the moment? Nothing, it can not explain a thing.
Whereas value ontology explains precisely what is happening, here and now in this thread;
different perspectives are unfolding their consequentiality so as to integrate each others consequences in their own terms.
Nietzsche called this will to power, Einstein called it Relativity, both describe it on different levels -
Value Ontology unfolds it as logic.
It applies to any identifiable unit of existence
Logic is the basis of physics, it is not an emulation of an imaginary subset of physics.
Serendipper - I guarantee, am willing to bet a million dollars that James will refuse and/or fail to explain RM to the point of you being able to do your calculations and verify his claims. I guarantee that you will not be able to arrive at any verifiable scientific proposition.
I also guarantee that following through value ontology will allow you to arrive at many verifiable scientific propositions, but obviously this depends on your intelligence and will to do so, so I wont bet the million bucks on that.
A nice example of how RM is hollow is to have it explain movements in economy in terms of currencies or precious metals.
it can’t. It couldn’t possibly tell you why one metal is more valuable to humans than another, or how people organize actions around a currency.
It couldn’t possibly discern criteria.
Because “affectance” is criterion-neutral.
Meaning that it describes the non-existence of existence.
Value, one other hand, applies as differentiation. Which is part of the reason it is the very basis of any axiom-setting; it allows us to discern real criteria.
RM literally has no tangible criteria. Nor has it tangible results.
Ive tried since 2010 to get James to make a single demonstrably relevant calculation, to have a single thing he says pertain directly to physics. It simply is not something he does.
Take him up on it, Serendipper. Jealousy makes for such deep hearted liars. They need punishment to regain perspective and respect for truthfulness.
Lols.
Yeah, good times. “Reality is made of tiny worms, that just sort of clump up and form stuff. Why? Because reality is wormy!”
Eh.
Serendipper, you made two very nice insights: that if more energy is added to the photon then it slows down by converting into mass (a consequence of how I described c as minimal possible distance of oscillation), and the idea that the front of the wave impacts this saturation point while the rest of the wave compresses and forms the barrier.
Very nice.
I would suggest to Fixed Cross to value himself a bit more. His desperate attempt to gain followers by putting others down is truly embarrassing. It tells more about him than about the people he attacks. And in this case it is more than ridiculous, even tragic, as he and his incapable friend were never able to grasp what James was talking about.
Ontology and epistemology have a dialectic, which is why they are both subsumed under metaphysics. These two questions are related: What can we know, and what has true existence. Each dictates the other. I’m not certain you can separate them. I think you need to look at their conclusions and sit in the armchair and think it through and go through it again and again until you get a hunch of whichever two answers go together correctly. I think this may be looked as “The whole is more important than the parts.” No?
The fate of science. Science assumes an objective reality called “matter”. So a scientist sets up a system to discover it and Voila! I said that matter existed and now I have proved it! This is Hegel’s criticism of the relation of the two questions.
I’m a common sense pragmatist of the Thomas Reid and William James Variety. William James might look at this problem and think, “What’s in your best interest to assume first.” Thomas Reid is very skeptical of ideal (idea) theories thinking common sense as an intuitional and foundational philosophy.
Where/which are these axioms, though? And how are they axioms, i.e., self-evidently worthy?
You have affirmed that the term “self-valuing” is inadequate. I’ve been thinking in terms of Aristotle’s noesis noeseos lately: axiosis axioseos, or perhaps axiosis tes autes axioseos–the valuing of valuing, or the valuing of the same valuing. I don’t think this is just formally related to Aristotle’s formula, either; I think, seemingly contrary to you, that valuing requires at least a rudimentary form of consciousness:
This is very promising, but I’m still missing something. Precisely if the doctrine of the will to power is true–i.e., corresponds to reality–, the doctrine must itself be an act of the will to power–i.e., an imposition, a violation of reality–; it cannot be simply true.
You have compared “self-valuing” to Crowley’s “Love under Will”: beneath the surface of the will to power, within it, there must be a kind of love (eros?): the will to power cannot be blind will, but must include a representation, an idea, a vision of the “beloved”, of the Other. In Value Ontology, the way I understand it, this idea is a projection of the Self, i.e., of the valuing that the “self-valuing” is. This implies a kind of self-reflection. Two puzzle pieces’ fitting into each other explains nothing; the puzzle piece that is the “self-valuing” in question recognizes everything it comes across only insofar as it is or can be a fitting puzzle-piece for it, and strives to make it fit insofar as it is not. This then also applies to VO itself: it is the attempt by a “self-valuing”, or multiple “self-valuings”, to make everything that does, did, will, or could exist correspond to its metaphysics, or its logic.
Thanks friend, but it was serendipity. This video gave me the idea that waves of light can compress:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s[/youtube]
The energy added in the separation of quarks producing more quarks in the other video helped me realize that energy goes directly into mass and mass cannot go the speed of light. It was a simple step from there to postulate that energy added to a photon will slow it down by producing mass and that has to be why c is what it is.
I’m not sure how frequency (wavelength) ties in, but it seems that energy added to gamma rays that would otherwise serve to increase frequency instead may transform into matter and thereby produce a maximum frequency as well as velocity of propagation.
The chart at 4:44 in the video below was insightful as well as the chart at 5:15 which seemed to indicate that “particles” may not be discrete in identity.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AamFQWwh94[/youtube]
Maybe the electron is a photon with a bit more energy added and likewise on down the list. Could there be particles between the photon and neutrino and between the electron and neutrino? Could the list be continuous? If not, why not?
Another question that needs answering is what is the lowest frequency and why. 0.1Hz have been detected, but is there a lower bound? It’s amazing to think about a 0.1Hz EM wave traveling at the speed of light. How close to 0 can it get? What happens at zero?
How does energy tie into force? If energy is used to produce a force, what is the frequency of that energy? Does it have a frequency? If not, then is EM radiation with a 0 frequency responsible for force? Could mass decay in the absolute lowest energy state of 0 Hz in the form of gravity? Would that explain why gravity is so weak?
Lots of questions remain.
The real beauty here is that if energy makes mass and mass decays back to energy then the universe can recycle itself seemingly forever. It’s like a huge ecosystem. Then the question will be where the fundamental laws came from. Are there various energy fields with different properties and laws and we just happened to be in the universe that worked? If so, where did they come from? And where are they? Obviously, we could never prove such a thing.
S - No, it is rather that each perspective, formula, entity, behaves as a self valuing, (trying to integrate the rest in its terms) and that this is self-evident.
You seem to conflate the term with the logic. Ive expressed a need of a more intuitively fitting term for the logic.
The logic, the idea, the philosophy has been hermetically completed and sealed, perfected, the very instant I conceived of it.
If it hadn’t been, it would obviously not be a logic.
I can’t precisely tell from your post how much is still unclear to you. I know you generally think in relevant areas, but from my perspective as a VO-ist it always is you who is mystifying, putting terms like self and consciousness into the equation where they are entirely out of place in VO.
Naturally, a logic that defies the logic of object-subject grammar (the thing Nietzsche and Heidegger tried to resolve) can not be simply expressed in that same grammar. It needs to be grasped logically, purely, abstractly, as a method, a new conception of method, of logic - basically a purely active agent.
Existence is active - there is nothing that it enforces on itself that it isn’t itself. Unless the opposite can be demonstrated, this is self-evident.
Reality is will to power. Does reality enforce itself on itself? Well, yes. But that doesn’t make it an artifice or a mystification. I don’t mystify reality if I shoot someone in the head. I just enact it. Even though that persons perspective is then gone, I haven’t done anything artificial or mystical.
Valuing is not a form of consciousness. Consciousness is a form of valuing.
Noted. Your two names are too similar.
Yes. One that allows for extreme amounts of inaccuracy and uncertainty, thus for the experience of time, of periods between relatively fixed states where things are merely possible, not necessary - this is what consciousness is. The (apparent) absence of necessity.
Once consciousness amounts in a decision, it disappears. Like once it amounts in an orgasm.
Consciousness is what exists between a valuing and the sufficient resolution of that valuing. It is a suspended state, in which the law of self-valuing logic takes hold anew, as on a new near-void, a new chaos.
Ideas are entities inside consciousness.
Sometimes an idea actually pervades and penetrates consciousness, such as this idea of mine and Nietzsches - in which case it transforms the entire fabric of that consciousness, makes it less arbitrary, less free to err, more bound to its ground - true to the Earth. This is why almost everyone hates it. Fear of the Earth - justified fear.
The Earth has no democratic laws, no protection for the weak, no bias in favour of stupidity.
I recommend reading through my first definitions from 2011 and '12.
Ive of course explained it hundreds of times afterwards, but since it is a logic and not a creative fingerpainting class, it doesn’t matter how many times I explain it, I am still explaining the exact same thing.
I think, S, that the part that you re missing, is conviction, completeness of will; only from absolute and total engagement of the will can we derive abstract principles that apply under all conditions. All conditions that include ones existence, that is. Existence is indeed a criterium for deciding what existence is. I would not agree that that is mystification.
Yes, self-valuing obviously describes itself, and the one who practices it, and the ones refusing it, and this very war - it is really the war between what I see as corrupted beings and what I see as beings of integrities, that I have initiated in this field - as I have been the first to introduce the logic of integrity.
Or let me call it Jakob Milikowski’s first law: the logic of integrity.
Void -
What I say about consciousness being basically a postponement of value-attainment (due to whatever causes), describes succinctly the condition Parodites explicates and unfolds ( into which I won’t go too deeply here in public, not throwing too many pearls out here, especially another philosophers ) as occurring due to the atrophying of instincts - namely, the failure of instincts to be directly, “blindly” functional - the failure to behave what we would now call unconsciously, automatically - and becoming things unto themselves and each other, rather than to merely a propagation of the meta-environment, the body.
The instincts became tracts of chemical-electric activity that just began to thrust into each other, work on each other, creating a whole realm of being between the generation of the valuing and its resolution - in fact virtually eliminating the possibility of complete resolution from the equation - only where consciousness bends toward animality and reproduction does the delay decrease and does the organism lose breadth of consciousness, “space for reflection” - does it becomes itself qua organism. In between these moments there is consciousness, which all people except philosophers know as a tremendous burden.
Granted there is a degree of ambiguity in my statement, but you know what I meant. It seems to me (and others here) that you’re grasping at anything you can in order to hinder progress and, like the Higgs field endowing mass to slow particles, you are striving to be the viscous goo obfuscating insight. Why do you want to be like that?
I fail to see the logic in your argument if semantics underpins your objection.
The sharp shooter fallacy?
You can’t see the forest for the trees. If he is wrong, help him. If you can’t, then you are no better. All you do is destroy; not contribute.
Yeah but the Higgs field is and it’s clear there is some field of energy out there even if the Higgs model doesn’t capture it. The way I see it, affectance is just another perspective on the field theories. Let’s put our heads together instead of butting them.
2010? You signed up here in 11. Anyway, that’s a long time for you to not also find a solution. At least James has done something and put together videos as well.
Well, the peaks are particles because matter is a concentration of energy. What’s the problem? Nomenclature?
Different perspectives unfold their consequences? What does that mean? Integrate each others consequences with respect to our own terms? Are you sure you’re not stringing together vague words in an effort to baffle with bs?
If you can’t explain it simply, then you do not understand it well enough.
So a unit of existence is my perspective in relation to your perspective? So if we each have consequent misunderstandings, then reality will be deformed. Makes no sense. Reality does not hinge on our interpretation of it for the simple fact that we live in the past relative to reality. So our perspective is inconsequential.
So what if he can’t explain? The objective is to find an explanation.
Unfortunately, you can’t explain your theory simply enough for anyone to get their head around it. It does no good to be smart if you can no longer communicate. The smartest person is the one who can get the idea in his head into another’s head as efficiently as possible.
You seem to write well enough, but not be able to read. So your writing is basically random nonsense, like that admitted “ambiguous” formulation of course, which is simply radical stupidity.
“It has nothing to do with light, but with causality. Just watch this video.”
A very concentrated heap of dung, sir.
Take care.
(PS - read back 6 years the discussions between me and James. See how I have helped him adapt his theory to Relativity and to my own theory, and see how he still fails to make sense with it — obviously you don’t want to take the bet, as you can’t see the sense in his theory either - but I know he is the more fashionable one.)
No, I meant the definition of serendipity - it means I stumbled on it by chance. That’s what my name means… I stumble upon things by chance or good fortune. Like it was good fortune stumbling in here and meeting you guys. It’s a reminder of humility.
Ah, ok then. I seem to read quickly through your statements and derive the wrong meaning, this has happened before. Perhaps there is a strange resonance between the ways we each write/read.
Glad it’s been of some benefit to you also, though.