Where does meaning come from?

Been thinking about PtA and its place in information En-De. Just briefly, trying to piece together some things, it seems to me PtA is has potential (pun intended) to explain one reason I use the “iota” as a reduction of information. Since you provided the concept I want to be sure I’m not abusing your sense of the term. In my thinking iotas form abstract point-locales. Point locales can either be spatially or abstractly located. “Location” appears to me to be in raw form a specificity, so location of an abstract object is limited to a specific meaning that stands outside spacetime, while spatial point-locales have both specificity and temporal behaviors in space. For a meaning to sustain in conceptualization seems to me to require the ‘that-what’ structure, and point-locales provide thatness.

How a thing can have a PtA lets me shift the view from information to force-energy fairly smoothly. I like this concept. It seems the PtA estimation of abstract things lies in their capacity to inform perception, and this capacity seems to require some sort of dynamic or force. I use the expression “force-energy” because force seems more generic and applicable to non-spatial reality while energy is more grounded as a function in time and space. Both can be used interchangeably, of course. My point is, each iota of information might contain as its value, one PtA for each component—thus, each iota would possess exactly 2 PtA, one for each component value (V) and particularity (P). Building from the reduction outward, I’ll assume arbitrarily that the simplest piece of matter—the quark I think—contains 10 PtA of P and 10 of V at its spatial point-locale. Potential in “potential to affect” is from this viewpoint a quantity of force or energy.

Is this understanding of PtAs as the force—either/both potential or/and actual—possible in your understanding and use of the term? Your suggesting that a PtA state is “below” or less than a particle state appears to place PtA in some other domain than I’m picturing. Also, is PtA a term your invention, a term you’ve used in copyrighted material or can I use it too? And thanks for your responses btw. I usually operate in a vacuum which can create stagnation…your contributions are welcome and stimulating, great stuff.

Anomaly654

Just to clarify a bit better than I have, PtA is not a thing or entity, but rather a measure of a situation at a point. PtA, Potential-to-Affect, refers to a physical situation, an arrangement of substance, not the substance itself.

I hope you don’t mind me taking you a layer deeper into this conceptual realm of PtA and I also want to introduce a new term: affectance. As PtA changes, it describes the physical substance called “affectance”. And PtA is always undergoing changes, being affected as it affects. Affectance is the changing of the PtA situation. Affectance is the changing whereas PtA is the arrangement of the changing that is itself being changed.

One way to think about this is . . .
. . . PtA being analogous to an electric field and . . .
. . . affectance being analogous to an electromagnetic wave . . .
. . . an electric field is merely a situation, not a substance . . .
. . . an electromagnetic wave is an electric field that is changing.

This sounds very reasonable to me. I really like your concept of iotas. The way you have explained it is quite understandable when I concentrate my focus on what you have written. As a side note, James and I also have a time unit related to universal maximum speed/s.

This tells me that we are nearly on the same wavelength - I must say that I am fairly excited when I read things like this. Your suggested mathematics here is indicative of the concept I am trying to convey which tells me that we are edging our way to an understanding of what each other is saying.

It seems you have it right - PtA is representative so it is kind of abstract itself. PtA states are infinitesimal and we have a way around that for measurement purposes. PtA is not a term that I invented - James I believe invented it. I would imagine as long as the term is being used correctly that James would not have a problem with it being used but I can not speak for him. You are welcome for the responses but I have to say that I am really enjoying this conversation myself.

I have been known to add ambiguity to a situation - my apologies if I have done that on this occasion - from where I am sitting however we are understanding each other. One thing I have noticed is that “things” seem to repeat themselves on scales from one scale to another so I imagine that the general idea/concept of PtA/Affectance can also work from ‘below the microscopic’ to ‘above the macroscopic’ scales and not just an infinitesimal scale.

If you don’t mind a short interjection:

An “iota” is a particle of information. PtA has no particulate form, but Affectance, made from the changing and propagating PtA, does have a particle form:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6-_6__9ZvY[/youtube]

And particles are formed from non-particulate substance due to the following principle which applies to all forms of existence; physical, social, psychological, economic (as is being discussed in another thread), and information

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypDrw4CHhw[/youtube]

And an iota particle, a mental construct, is formed of PHT, Perception of Hope and Threat or “inferred relevance”. PHT is the mental form of PtA and the Potential for Action for conscious beings.

And also, it is accurate Principles and Facts that are eternal (“Conceptual Realm”), never changing. Anything physical is always undergoing alterations (“Physical Realm”). Or “Divine and Mortal Realms”, if you prefer Plato’s version.

And encode seems to be doing great so far. :sunglasses:

Armed with my 9th grade education I got a night security job at a hydroelectric plant some 18 years ago to cover slow time while self-employed, sitting in a 8’x10’ temporary guard shack from 6pm to 6am keeping eye on contractor parking lot, i.e., doing nothing for 12 hours a night. Was looking for answers to the theological problem I’d been working on for several years, so over those winter months dusted off the set of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles given me years earlier, and read most of both. Loved the stuff, though the archaic language was tough to steer through. Things started clicking, and found I loved reading metaphysics and philosophy even though I only comprehend about 30% of what I read. Since then, I’ve found myself swimming in a sea of ambiguity. I know ambiguity, En-De, and you ain’t it. I’m learning a lot from you, no worries…discussing abstract stuff is essentially a swim in Ambiguous Ocean, goes with the territory. :laughing:

I need to take some time and think through your and Mr. Saint’s last posts, this is new stuff for me. Thanks for your contributions. I’m willing to learn as long as youse are willing to teach.

The first thing that came to mind on reading this is that no, iotas of information are only particles as long as we’re discussing them; otherwise they probably exist as a waves (apologies for insertion of odd humor).

Back to sober discussion mode, it seems your presentation of PHT, PtA, Affectance and the way iotic information fits into these terms from your understanding seems to lead to an Idealist construct. This would explain my initial struggle to see the connections—I put things together from the “standard” realist perspective. If I understand correctly your explanation suggests a raw “stuff of existence” as a potential [non-particulate substance] available to intellectual operation to be made actual in either mental [iota of information; abstract entities] or so-called “material” [atomic/subatomic particles] form.

Is this heading in the right direction? And can you elaborate the idea of non-particulate substance? What is its form—pure energy? Where does value fit in?

NOTE: Your last post showed only large empty space between comments; wasn’t till I clicked “quote” button just now to respond (usually just copy/paste text) that I saw YouTube links. Comments above were without vantage point of seeing videos, so apologies if they talk past relevant points. Will watch vids soon to get a stronger feel for your position.

:laughing: IQM, Informational Quantum Mysticism.
… Seriously bright lad :sunglasses: [size=85](probably susceptible to leftist ideologies… :confused: )[/size]

Every ontology is an idealized map of the real terrain. I specialize in ensuring that the maps are accurate. I am an Ontologist (one who forms ontologies, hopefully accurate understandings of reality). The word “inform” refers to casting or forming an idea relating to reality. All information (the ideas) are a part of the idealization of reality. Actual physical reality has no information, merely the potential for someone to form ideas within their mind from it, “reality informs” and “reality in-form”.

Well, close. As Aaron explained, PtA is not a substance, but rather a situation. So it is still an existence, but not a substance. And by “potential”, we mean for example; an apple hanging from a tree, just about to fall. The apple alone does not possess the potential to fall. The tree does not pose the potential to fall (at the moment anyway). The gravitational field does not have any potential to fall. So how does falling get into the picture?

It is the combination, the “situation” that possesses the potential to actualize the falling of an apple. Every actualization of something is preceded by the potential to actualize that something. The situation must be right (by definition), else there can be no actual anything, because there would have been no potential for it, no possibility (in QM terms).

As it turns out in physical reality, it is only the potential (the PtA) changing that forms physical substance (the Affectance - ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses and waves - EMR, aka “light”). The initial potential was merely the potential to change potential - forming an affect upon potential. Then the changes in potential propagate as waves, “Affectance - Affect upon Affect”.

Another video that you might not see:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCbvMML95QM[/youtube]
Affectance Visualization

  • See I can do it too. :wink: There was no actual beginning except in the understanding of what must proceed what - the “light in the mind”, enlightenment.

Science used to speak of “electric potential fields” or “static electric fields” and measured it in voltage. They still speak of voltage, but avoid the idea of potential. They prefer speaking of “electromagnetic” substance as a fundamental substance, leaving people a bit confused about potential energy. The static electric field is what actualizes the electric current or effect. In general, scientists make for pretty poor rational philosophers.

By “non-particulate”, I mean “infinitely divisible” or a continuum. Potentials or situations don’t come in quanta (which is probably why the Quantum Magi don’t want to speak of it). And even the changing potentials, the Affectance, don’t have any particulate form until they amass or cluster into a traffic jam, known as a “subatomic particle” (hence “a mass particle”). The subatomic particle (in all its variety) is the actual smallest form of physical quanta (despite what the Quantum Magi like to preach).

Value is a mental construct, subjective and relative. Value is formed from a perception of hope and/or threat, PHT. If some situation appears to inspire hope, it is valued as positive. If a situation appears threatening, it is valued as negative. Positive and negative are always relative terms, both in the mental as well as the physical; positive “above” neutral and negative “below” neutral.

And just as PtA forms a propagating wave of changing PtA, PHT or Value in the mind forms propagating changes in value in the mind and consequential action (the physically existent). Such is witnessed as one thing becomes valuable merely because it is associated with or leads to another thing of value, on and on. Money is only valuable because it allows the purchase of something valuable that helps create a situation that is more valued, for whatever value related reason. All emotions, attitudes, inspirations, choice of relevance (“in-formation”), and meaning are formed from those actualizing, propagating PHT/Value waves within.

And That is where “meaning comes from”.

What browser are you using?

This is interesting stuff. Not sure how well I’m grasping, though. Watched the videos. Here’s briefly what I come up with:

PtA = abstract “stuff” of existence
Affectance = a particle or point, a concrete instance of PtA
Afflate = tiny amount of Affectance, more a “noise” or “puff” of Affectance, oblate in form [which suggests spatiality] but without a discrete border. This seems to have one foot in abstraction (puff, an almost incorporeal mist of Affectance) and one in the concrete (oblate). This is confusing to me. Can you elaborate?

Value = mental construct from perception of “hope and threat”. This is confusing, unless you just mean prescriptive value, because hope and threat has an emotive shared meaning element with good and bad. The confusing part is that descriptive value bears no such connection; I can’t see how 3+3=6 or the electrical panel in a house has a dual 240 and 120 VAC capability have any epistemic connection to “hope and threat”. They’re only statements of fact.

Also, what mechanism arranges an Afflate to “oblate” or determines that Affectance is spherical? Why not square or multiple configurations or why any geometric form at all?

Btw, I often use IE (old habit), which explains the blanks; hooked up to ILP with Firefox and now can see vids.

It’s good to get feedback, regardless. So Thx.

Wow, really? After all of that explanation and even pictures??
Hmmm… :confused:

I’m now dubious of any attempt to explain, perhaps Aaron can communicate it better.

Imagine a cloud in the sky. Then, with perfect eyes, you look at one small “hand full” of the cloud. And then, even further, your keen eyes focus upon only the tiny little droplets within that handful that happen to be traveling to your right. That would be analogous to an “afflate”. Of course at that same location, there are the droplets heading in all of the other directions also. Each of those directions would constitute another “cloud-afflate”. Ideally, there would be an infinity of afflates at that one location because there are an infinity of directions stemming from any one location.

Afflate Diagram.png

An actual rain cloud is formed of droplets, thus there are only a finite quantity of them around a location. So the analogy isn’t perfect. And also, droplets to not pass through each other, whereas propagating affectance pulses do pass through each other, but not without being slightly delayed due to the encounter.

A more detailed explanation of the concepts:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSFp7Hc_4Xw[/youtube]
Affectance Ontology Lexicon

So an “afflate” is merely a mentally chosen specific amount of the otherwise randomly scattering affectance field. The afflate is not a physically discrete entity, but a mentally chosen one, just like choosing a certain hand-full of that rain cloud and only the portion headed in a chosen direction. Afflates are used for the purpose of computer emulating a realistic affectance cloud by assigning a great many random directions and densities and then letting them flit about, interacting by the “Afflate Rules of Engagement” - the manner in which they interfere with each other’s propagation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teddr0p__xQ[/youtube]
Rules of Afflate Engagement

The end result of a proper emulation is that traffic jams of flitting afflates form, “particles”. They form in 3 fundamental types: Positive, Negative, and Neutral. They behave exactly as known subatomic particles. They display all of the known characteristics of subatomic particle interaction. And all without ever being told to do so, rather each individual afflate is merely told to obey those Rules of Afflate Engagement. Such is serious rational evidence that physical reality is exactly as Affectance Ontology describes it, even more so than earlier attempts; Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum.

The word “value” has two uses. One is to refer to a measurement of something and the other refers to an assigned degree of significance or “meaningfulness”. I assumed that you were speaking of the latter of those, “meaningfulness”. The former seems a bit moot.

There is an analogy between the way actual physics functions and the way that conscious motivation functions. That is what I was talking about. The videos are about the physics. The analogies are for open discussion for those few interested.

As stated above, it is merely a mental choice. Other, more difficult to program, shapes could have been chosen. In the long run, they all get blended together into a field that behaves in a specific manner - that of physical reality.

Hmm… seems odd that IE can’t show youtube videos. :confused:

James

All of this of course is dependent on the way one looks at things to begin with.

I remember a while back being caught by this trap when trying to understand what you were saying to me. In the case of RM:AO we are basing everything around two realms and they are the physical and the meta or that being described and the description respectively.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

That being described is physical reality and the description is a meta-reality. Meta-reality has information. For me it just took a little while to adjust my focus before I could understand what you were saying. It is not just the arrangement of words but the visual and relative aspect of what you are saying that is to make sense.

This is why I find your videos and diagrams useful.

:-k

Perhaps starting out a little gentler is what is called for here . . .

Yes, knowing where to start with any one person is tough. :-k

I refer to them as the Physical Realm and the Conceptual Realm. They are independent as neither has affect upon the other, yet within each, everything affects something else.

But the conceptual realm is more than merely descriptions of the real. The conceptual realm is ALL concepts; ideas, imaginings, ideals, principles, strategies, maps, symbols, and thoughts - the things of form, “in-form-ation”. There is nothing physical within the conceptual realm and nothing conceptual within the physical realm.

What inherently distinguishes them is that the physical realm is made of the changing, specifically the changing of the potential to change, “affect upon affect”. But the conceptual realm contains no changing at all. All “affects” in the conceptual realm are more commonly called “relations”. If anything was to change in the conceptual realm, other concepts would necessarily have to change also; e.g. If a “straight line” is redefined such as to include curves (as some try to do with General Relativity) then a “square” would no longer have straight sides, because one is defined in terms of the other.

The two realms can be said to be “touching” when, and only when, there is a physical happening present that is also a concept. There are a great many of those. Mass gravitation, or Migration, is always occurring somewhere in the universe as a physically real event, Physical Realm. And such an action or principle of “mass-attraction” is also a concept and principle in the Conceptual Realm. Thus the two realms “touch”. The concept of mass attraction never changes and even though the mass attracting changes degree and location in the physical universe, the physical universe is never without it.

What anyone chooses to call a “realm of existence” is a bit arbitrary as long as it isn’t ambiguous. One can define a Perceptual Realm as all that is ever perceived, which would include partially the physical realm and partially the conceptual realm.

Much like choosing transforms or an ontology for sake of calculations, one can choose realms for sake of organizing their thoughts … as long as there is no ambiguity. It is merely choosing different symbols for a map of the same terrain.

That is true.

“Gentler”??? :-s :confusion-scratchheadyellow:

Anomaly654

Please see James’ previous posts first and my previous post - if you have already done this then disregard what I am saying in this sentence.

I have started a new thread which will serve as a gentler introduction to what James and I are talking about - you are welcome to ask questions there, in fact I encourage you to ask what ever questions you want - better to start out small however. We can keep discussing iotas in this thread along with meaning and how RM:AO fits in with it’s PtAs and affectance. You can find the new thread here.

Heads up . . . I start the new thread out with the rationale of why I stay involved with RM:AO.

:sunglasses:

Sorry, I apparently offended you with my interpretation of your view. For what it’s worth, I’ve found that my own understanding of things, being more abstract than most, is hard for people to grasp—not because it’s difficult but because its different, unorthodox. People aren’t used to thinking outside their box. I’m no different. You’ve presented a system that’s alien to my way of thinking. I studied your videos, most of them at least twice [don’t retain well and usually read everything beyond the Dick and Jane level twice before I get much of it], before I tried putting your ideas into my own realm of understanding—the only one I’m used to using, admittedly. Sorry this fell so obviously short of your expectations.

My thinking about reality is much different than yours, it’s not easy to suddenly move laterally when I’m used to thinking in my own straight line.

Whose mind? If the rules for ordering are a set of pre-existent forces, then this makes sense. If man’s, then it’s hard for me to imagine why each individual mind–given humanity’s natural penchant for dissimilarity–would automatically chose to form the same geometric symmetry, the same physical reality. This isn’t clear to me from your comment, “…each individual afflate is merely told to obey those Rules of Afflate Engagement” Who is doing the instructing?

Maybe as this view picks up speed you could prepare (or have prepared) some lower level explanatory videos/PDFs that can give those of us with less education—the informed layman—more opportunity to understand the concepts involved.

No, no. I am not offended, more disappointed in my ability to explain things. I can write what appears to me to be very clear but often to someone else, from a different vantage, it isn’t clear at all. I struggle with that issue, but consider it to be one of my own. Don’t worry about it. I just have to find the right words for the right people.

I can very much relate to that.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Again, I can relate.

I suspect that we are too greatly confusing different issues together. I had merely stepped in to attempt to clarify the fundamental physics of affectance and then show a little of the analogy to mental functioning, mental affectance - PHT and emoting.

An “iota” of information is analogous to a subatomic particle from which molecules (of information) are assembled. The issue of PtA and Affectance is on a lower level, beneath the formation of a subatomic particle and analogously, below the level of the formation of the iota. What is below the level of the iota is what is relevant to the mind, whichever mind (mental affectance - PHT and emoting). There must be relevant distinction in the perceived environment for a mind to identify a “thing of existence” or an “iota of information” (that “preexistent force for order”). Senses pickup the distinctions so as to form relevant thought concerning an environment so that reactions and plans can be made - survival.

The end point was that such subtle beginnings is from whence “meaning” comes (the thread topic).

Hopefully I didn’t confuse you even further. Sorry if I did. I’ll step back out and let Aaron take over from here. :sunglasses:

James

There are a number of points you have made in your recent posts that I am very interested in.

I would like to learn more about the things that we have not yet discussed.

Give me a day or two to go back over your posts.

James

Mental constructs remind me of afflates for some unknown reason and appear to be chosen by relevance as opposed to for study.

This is deep stuff from my point of view. So PHT is the arrangement of the iota and affectance is the physical substance of the iota. Inferred relevance would be when an iota seems to match some other iota or has a relation - from a particle level that is. I imagine that from the PHT level we are dealing with thoughts as opposed to particles and that thoughts are more akin to polyparticles.

Am I at least, kind of on the right track? I am fascinated by what I am seeing and perhaps you could illuminate it further and make necessary corrections.

.
Foundation of Physicality:
$$\mathtt{PtA \to Affectance \to subatomic; Particle \to Molecularization \to Biology}$$
Foundation of Mentality:
$$\mathtt{PHT \to Emoting \to information; Iota \to Cognition \to Mind}$$

Awesome James

That will allow me to build a mental map.

Your example makes sense and I can see logically where meaning fits in as an expression of information.

Thank you very much.

:sunglasses:

The above helps me understand the structure you’re using better. Puts me somewhat in mind of Bernardo Kastrup’s whirlpool metaphor in Why Materialism is Baloney.

My notion of the significance of an iota of information is radically different, though. I may be wrong, but maybe you steer away from a realist and toward an idealist perspective because the paths from quantum to macro realities appear to be interpreted by most as supporting this paradigm?

But the iotan point of view addressed to date is incomplete. One way to look at it might be that information describes our internal sense of existence but not reality. Existence is made up of iotas and their constituents, particularity and value, or I=P^V. But this can’t explain everything. The big picture of reality includes Form (F)where, F+I(P^V) = reality.

Form is an awkward term for modern usage, but is just meant to describe the external “organizing principle” imposed on the internal informational existence we occupy. I think the concept hardest, maybe impossible, for me to synthesize with Affectance Ontology is that of value. For me, information itself is, at the end of the day, just a front for, or the “face” of, value. Value is (for me anyway) hiding at the bottom of the layers of abstraction, i.e., it’s difficult for me, not to imagine but to conceptualize reality as complex associations and interactions of assorted values—but that’s where I end up when I peel back the layers.

Form is pure, absolute Truth. Reality for me is in the end a compatibility of value structures. Form is conceptually known in the material sphere as the laws of science or physical laws or “non-contact” forces of gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces. From a human perspective, the laws ordering matter aren’t absolute. Nuances have been measured in the force of gravity in certain situations, and Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory is reported to work on macro, but not micro, levels. But there is enough evidence from centuries of scientific study to reasonably claim that absolute rules and laws govern and supervise the goings on of the material realm. These laws—as Form—provide sufficient evidence from the persistent reliability of their use over many centuries to recognize the distinction between their veracity and our deficiencies in knowledge to distinguish all possible variables involved in measuring them. It can be stated with reasonable conviction that absolute laws whose intricacies we’re not yet fully aware of preside over matter.

James B. Saint stated,

For me, value on all levels underpins reality. Factual and moral are two aspects of the same thing at work: prescriptive and descriptive value. The Affectance and assorted videos [like all videos] are nothing more or less than value depictions using the same myriad ‘measurement values’ in the technology used to convey them from thought to pixels. Descriptive value is normatively inert but lends itself to easy identification and manipulation (empirical connection). Prescriptive value endues all organic material, is easy to spot but very difficult to measure.

The compatibilist organization is easily seen in the material: macro structures change while the immutable truth-values of its sub atomic constituents whose force-values (or measurements if you prefer) are ordered according to, or supervised by, the equally immutable truth-value energies of Form. Thus, F+I(P^T)=reality. In the end, everything is value, value produces “fields” of information (in which, to use En-De’s metaphor) bubbles of meaning arise and merge.

Prescriptive value has one very significant difference from all the aforementioned: the content of prescriptive value that endues each human [the soul] is, unlike all the rest of value in reality, falsifiable, seemingly by the affectance (if I may borrow your terminology Mr. Saint) of its own conceptual/perceptual manipulations, i.e., the power of the will. The soul viewed as information-in-reduction would thus be interpreted as possessing “fragmental falsification”. Falsifiability thus conceived would, cumulatively speaking—and in the same compatibilist interactions noted above—seem to account for a broad number of effects, from the change in normative values of societies and cultures as the prime dynamic behind all human behavior. Where falsity applied by minds to material entities [as in the earlier examples of the decaying fruit or crumbling house] is purely subjective and relative, the falsification of the soul’s informational content exerts an actual pressure in intellectual consciousness (which we call morality or the moral).

I’m not sure how or if the admittedly interesting and sophisticated idea of Affectance Ontology can find compatibility with a view of reality in which value is the highest form of existence. I don’t deny that an iota could be and probably is a mental construct of PHT, but in Affectance Ontology that’s all it could ever be, while it may have degrees of actual existence [to the degree it works as an explanatory process] in a realist universe.

Let’s suppose just for the sake of argument that this encompasses the foundation of…meaning?

How then would one reconfigure it into a discussion of, among other things:

1] an ontological understanding of Existence itself
2] the possibility of teleology in the universe
3] the implications of determinism in a universe governed by immutable laws of matter; the question of dualism – the brain/mind nexus
4] the quandary rooted in Hume’s distinction between correlation and cause and effect
5] the extent to which God and religion are applicable here
6] the extent to which human interactions can be wholly understood
7] the manner in which conflicting human interactions might be reconciled/resolved – morality, ethics, political economy
8] the role that science has to play
9] the role that philosophy has to play
10] all the ones I’ve missed

What would seem to be of fundamental concern to most of us is the extent to which an intellectual contraption of this sort allows us to actually understand the very existence of “I” itself — the part embodied day in and day out in, for example, birth-school-work-death.

Seems when it rains, it pours. :sunglasses:

Ontological descriptions have nothing to do with idealism vs realism. Those terms relate to prospective social planning such as a utopia. Every ontology uses idealized concepts in order to build an understanding. There is no choice in that. So I’m not sure to what you are referring.

Every ontology that I have encountered has been “incomplete” and/or broken (incoherent) … other than my own (of course :smiley: ).

Ahh … tsk tsk…
Define “existence” in an unambiguous, meaningful way (ie don’t simply substitute the word for another nor tell of its make). What does it mean that “something exists”?

It seems that you are describing what amounts to solipsism, “reality is only what I think (and/or value)”.

I can go along with the concept that “we are information based entities”, but not that reality is an information based entity. We mustn’t conflate the map with the terrain, nor the mapper with a god (the socio-political intent).

“Values” to whom? Different minds will have different values concerning the exact same portion of reality. So who would be correct? Or are you going to claim that there is no uni-verse, but rather multi-reality (“to each his own”)?

Now now…
Define “Truth”, again unambiguously and meaningfully.

Now you are back to postmodern Quantum Magi metaphysics. You cannot ever “complete” Quantum Physics, because it depends upon incoherent concepts (duality of particle and wave being the most famous). Even Feynman proclaimed that “no one can ever understand Quantum Physics, so just don’t try - shut up and calculate”. It is entirely the promotion of magic (that which cannot be understood - anti-science). Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, is merely statistics, void of ontological truth claims (although uses ontologically chosen entities), and thus valid science.

Well, yes, Science acknowledges that it is having problems forming a truly solid comprehensive understanding. I have explained why in various threads. It is an issue of them starting off with an insufficient ontological foundation. For example, what we know of as “forces” do not actually exist on the subatomic level. They are a emergent perceptions (macroscopically they appear to exist and might as well on that level - also known as “superstition”, no different than ancient magic). The universe itself never, ever involves forces. There is only one actual entity that could validly be called “force”, although too misleading, and that would be the “potential force/voltage” named “Potential-to-Affect”, PtA. And that is only a force in the sense that it leads to (“causes”) change, but only in its immediate, infinitesimal surroundings. There is no pushing or pulling on the subatomic level of physical existence.

And your statement (in blue) seems to contradict a prior statement (in red).

Well, we need some common ground language in order to communicate.
Define also “reality” and “value” for me , so that we can talk.