1 ► Increase the size of the Meta-Box.
2 ► Double the Afflates processed for the larger Meta-Box.
3 ► Make some color adjustments(same amount of distinct yellow as distinct blue, with a lot of green between).
4 ► Calculate the ambient density for each individual afflate.
5 ► Toy with Afflate Scatter.
6 ► Calculate the engagement speed for each Afflate.
7 ► Consider all rules of engagement.
Hidden Information
In the following two certainty principles, is to be found among other things, the relationship between afflate density and ambient density.
3 ► To exist is to be affected by the surrounding existence and to affect the surrounding existence.
Each afflate like us is affected by the surrounding existence - its density therefore must be affected by the ambient density.
Each afflate also affects the surrounding existence - therefore the density of each afflate affects the ambient density.
4 ► What it is that we are a part of, surrounds us and also exists . . .
Each afflate is a part of the surrounding existence, and it is only by convenience and convention, that we treat each afflate as we do.
We can divide things up however we want, but let us keep this in mind,
however else one wants to divide things up . . .
. . . obviously it is these divisions that we work with when we discuss these sorts of things . . .
. . . the divisions are a matter of convenience and . . .
. . . standards are just divisions that we agree upon . . .
. . . a standard that we use here is called an afflate . . . the afflate is a division . . .
to be continued . . .
The Initial State
Physical reality has been around for ever. There is no way to predict what wasn’t ever there, that is quite clear, what was not ever there was a beginning, therefore there was no initial state, there was just God - nothing can be what it is and remain that way.
What about the perception that we are giving the emulator an initial state - this is supposed to be a drop in replacement for a beginning . . . nonsense, the computer is made of stuff that has been around for ever - James is made of the same stuff and so am I.
“All other forms of affecting can be equally predicted except for the problem of having to gain sufficient initial state information.”
This is figurative only. To gain the initial state information - we play the “hand of god” by executing the program, but we are made of stuff that follows the principles of God. The initial state information is gained from a set of information that appears to have no order - id est random - voila - we continue like the stuff we are made of.
Links
► Collated Formation
► Affectance Transition
► Certainty
► Regional Affectance Density
► Metaspace Principles
► Rendering by the Emulator
► A new beginning . . .
You are here . . .
You start with a random distribution of fuzzballs.
Nobody is saying that you can’t do that.
So far we have discussed some Common Physics, the Propagation of Affect, Ambient Affectance and touched on the Forming of Particles.
With the rules of engagement and the starting of two Emulators we are ready to get started on plugging in the rules of engagement and get some particles.
First I am going to be messing around with scatter and setting up an ambient density field.
With scatter I am going to simulate it to begin with and then emulate it.
With ambient density I am going to try a couple of different things.
We should be able to derive quite a lot from my experiments.
I need more to think about.
AO - The Emulator
Some Skeleton Code
[list] a > The Black Box
b > The Importance Of Design
c > The Code
d > Improvements
[/list:u]
What is our skeleton code? The skeleton code is the backbone of the emulator, it is a specification that has been witnessed in this thread a few times already.
We turn the spec into code - we are still doing it.
The black box is a complex system or device whose internal workings are hidden or not readily understood. We make derivations through a black box called an emulator with the intention of readily understanding the workings of an emulated universe and in turn our own universe.
The important of design can not be underestimated, for instance we need a random number generator that is actually random - randomness does involve clusters and sparsity as well as a continuum to place clusters and sparsity on - we use milliseconds to initiate the continuum because not one millisecond is ever the same id est milliseconds are forever - once the initiation is complete we get some sparse information and clustered information and if this is not apparent then our randomness is no good but if it is apparent then we are good to go. The emulated universe is good to go after this and what was once unknown becomes known as we make discoveries.
Good design also allows us the ability of having tools by which to help us make predictions - these tools become a part of the emulated universe and are designed around things we have discovered in the emulated universe. No different to the physical universe.
The code is separated in to two realms - the driver which is the conceptual - the physical which causes what you see on the screen using conceptual laws. They are connected in the sense that they are a part of the one program - and separate in the sense that one is derived from metaphysics and the other is to be derived from to back up this metaphysics - this becomes a circular dependency.
Improvements are made across the board when something does not prove physical reality and in turn conceptual reality.
You can call me crazy but sometimes I do have to argue the very things that I myself do.
I am basing the random distribution on three basic principles.
Calculations In The Code are made on interactions that happen after the initial state. Some thought, has to be put into the interactions that take place, to make sure they can be physically true. Interactions In The Code are self driven after the initial state - that is no further input is required by the initiator.
Analytically there will be numbers to look for and these numbers will result in more mathematics. Interpreting results will come down to looking for these numbers and using tools available to verify the numbers - the numbers are representative of the universe, if they are not then they are not good numbers. The numbers should at times have patterns associated with them or they are not representative of anything.
The more consistency found in the operation of the emulator and physical reality the more that the emulator can be applied to answering questions one might ask.
Static ambient density:
Where {a,b,c} is the center point of the cube. $$Ab = \frac{1 }{(1 + 4\pi((x-a)^2 + (y-b)^2 + (z-c)^2))}$$
I wonder whether this is the only way to achieve this - whatever way is used would still be representative of this.
Ambient density has come from the distribution of fuzzballs. Where else would it come from?
The ambient doesn’t “come from” the “fuzzballs”. The ambient IS the fuzzballs.
The only way to achieve what?
If the whole universe is made of affectance then the ambient density is also fuzz - different fuzzing leads to different affects.
Fuzzballs are conveniently chosen portions of affectance - Ambient density has become differential from the balls not come from the balls.
Ambient density is just an unwanted artifact that is necessary to make contrast.
I appreciate you questioning everything phyllo. I wish there was a thumbs up smiley.
The only way to achieve what?
Oh there is a thumbs up, cool. Achieve static ambient density given the emulator is fundamentally working off discrete principles. Surely there is a way to get closer to the machine is what I am wondering - the end result would be that math.
I’m still lost as to what you are thinking. That formula is for the light scatter simulation. The formula yields a static ambient field density representative of an amassed monoparticle in the center of the cube with no other affectance present. A group of afflates are then to be introduced propagating from one side. As each afflate traverses the mass field, it’s trajectory will be altered.
I knew you would be still lost after I made the post and read it - I am thinking on the fly to see how much of this is internalized hence why I was appreciative of phyllo’s questions. I understand what the formula is for - I was wondering how I could translate it beyond regular code, closer to the machine - assembly code mixed with binary operations.
You are saying to create an amassed monoparticle, in the center of the cube - I am saying the same except I will have other affectance present. Point the afflates at it, as they approach there is going to be “force” between them and the monoparticle, and each other - I imagine some repulsive force is present and momentum to give the slingshot.
Speed versus density? Perhaps.
The repulsion is an illusion.
I am further stating to create an affectance field, such that it is static with more mass in the center.
“Unwanted artifact”?
The density will produce the specific pattern of motion that you see in the cube. Without it, the motion would be random.