Where does meaning come from?

Hate to have to stop you already, but I really don’t understand the term “realities”. Before I get into the rest, could you clear up that term for me? I only know of one reality.

Structure intended is: Your reality is the set of all existents, phenomenal [or other] experience and interactions you have, my reality consists of mine. These are sets of things drawn from all that exists [existence] that make up each reality. Both draw from available pool of existence. From a realist perspective, anyway. When we communicate we share bits of each reality.

So when you say that something is “real”, what are you saying? Real for you, but perhaps not real for me?? :confused:

And let me clear up a different issue:
Similarly charge objects “repel” (migrate away from each other). But the substance of the charge itself aggregates. Positive affectance aggregates positive affectance. Once positive particles are formed, each positive particle will maintain its independence from the others by migrating away (aka “repelling”).

When it comes to Truth, the same takes place. Smaller truths accumulate into an ontology, a singular understanding. Divergent understandings are then avoided and kept separate. Scriptures use one ontology (involving spirits, gods, angels, and so on) while materialist science uses different ontologies (quantum reality, relativity, classic Newtonian). One should never mix ontologies, just as the universe never mixes similarly charged particles.

And interestingly, both happen for the same reason. Charged particles are obeying PtA concerns and truth constructs, ontologies, are obeying analogous PHT concerns.

If you are a Philosophical Realist, then your claim should be ‘there is only ONE Reality [as with JSS] with many ways one can correspond truths to such a reality.’ Note the Corresponding Theory of Truth.

“only an approximation of reality” imply there is only one reality to be approximated to.

But philosophically, Philosophical Realism is not a tenable theory and Philosophical Realism is soundly trashed by various Philosophical anti-Realism theories, e.g. by Kant, Hume, phenomenology, etc.

So science is not tenable now, huh.
Sheeesh … #-o

Nah, that is why your view is narrow and shallow.

Philosophical Realism is not tenable and,
philosophically, it is false to claim that Science is a subset of Philosophical Realism.

As Popper had stated scientific theories are merely polished conjectures as ‘polished’ in tandem with the evidences produced and justified with the Scientific Framework and System.
Science is led by evidence and its justification process not by some dogma of existence.

So you seriously believe that Science doesn’t accept that atoms, for example, are anything but mentally conjured imaginings? That nothing is actually real?

You DO realize that Popper was ANTI-science, right?

What is real to Science is qualified to the Scientific Framework and System and the confidence in that system is based on the assurance testability and repeatable conclusion by anyone.
Whatever is real in relation to Science must be qualified to its inherent Scientific Framework and System (Scientific Methods, principles, peer pressure, etc.)

Who said Popper was Anti-Science?
There is no reason for Popper to be anti-Science except being anti-Scientism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
What Popper did was to put Science in its proper philosophical perspective after Hume has thrown in a spanner to the prior overconfidence on Science by those who are into Scientism.

Even if that wasn’t just double-talk BS, the fact is that Science cannot function at all unless it accepts that some things are in FACT real. How else could an experiment be conducted and measured? “What we are seeing is just in our minds, so pay no attention to irrational occurrences”. Grant you, the Quantum Magi love that sort of thinking, but they are not Science. They promote magic in the name of science.

Science is completely in the realm of Realism (as opposed to Solipsism), else having “independent experimenting” would be completely irrelevant to them.

Are my thoughts, beliefs or nightmares real for you? They are for me. Yet both mine and yours are drawn from the same pool of existence.

Why does positive, negative or neutral even exist? Not sure what you mean by “substance of the charge”…do you mean charge itself distinct from the affectance charge endues?

This makes sense to me if you mean truth accumulates to larger pools or bundles of truth-bearing entities for minds to apprehend. In my thinking intellectual operation [or “living information” or consciousness] is fragmentally falsified, hindering ability to unite fully with descriptive or prescriptive truths–though the mechanics of each are recognizably different.

Isn’t this your way of articulating the factual-moral divide? I can see developing ontologies along different lines, but at the end of the day material beings routinely make ethical decisions and hold moral beliefs, so there must be a connection somewhere.

The notion of PHT is interesting, haven’t had time to try to follow it through. But seems to me both PtA and PHT need an organizational principle or blueprint, for affectance to produce symmetrically coherent points or for PHT to build to consistent, lucid rules of morality. Because I see truth itself as the source of energy or force, the essence or meaning of truth is organizational stability. In fact, pardon for projecting my definitions on your construct, but PtA and PHT seem good candidates for two aspects of the same truth-force to me. The trick is find the point of convergence.

BTW, I was thinking; seems to me it might be easier to grasp AO if some 3 dimensional presentations of its mechanisms could be produced. Not sure of degree of difficulty.

As far a Science is concern, it can only claim “scientific realness” never absolute realness, i.e.
“Whatever is real in relation to Science must be qualified to its inherent Scientific Framework and System (Scientific Methods, principles, peer pressure, etc.)”

Note there is no absolute realness for Science because Science made provision for a certain degree of uncertainty and falsifiability
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
that its theories can be changed if new justifiable evidences are brought forth and this allowance for change has been going on since Science emerged within human cognition.
Because Science is open for changes, its established scientific theories will never ever be real in the absolute sense but merely relative real subject to the Scientific Framework and System and awaiting changes to the theory or its termination.

So if a change to a scientific theory is necessary or be discarded it can only be done subject to the requirements of Scientific Framework and System (Scientific Methods, principles, peer pressure, etc.) and nothing else.
Scientific facts can only be ‘scientific facts’ and not general facts.

At most Science merely ASSUME general ‘realism’. An assumption is never a fact. Get it?

Scientists don’t give a f… to your claim they cannot function unless some things are FACT in accordance to your views. What is their concern is they must comply with the basic and relevant conditions of what is within the Scientific Framework and System as agreed with their peers.

Why not???
As I had stated as long as experiments and measurements are made within the requirements of the Scientific Framework and System [agreed by their peers], then they are scientifically valid. What is so complicated about this. If there is a non-compliance, it will be rejected in a peer review.

Don’t bring in ‘Solipsism’ which is an idea from the philosophically immatured.
iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7
If insisted regardless, Solipsism is an incoherent and stupid idea.

Science does not investigate reality but observable phenomena and specifically their properties and capabilities
Whether they are real or not is not a question it can answer since ontology pertains to philosophy not to science

Agree. How come you are so smart?

Phenomenon is a subcategory of reality, not separate from it.

How come you are not?

Yes, your dreams are real to me. You experience them and thus know of them far more than I, but that doesn’t change whether they are real to me. I don’t experience the back side of the Moon, yet it is still real to me … and everyone.

Reality does not equate to experience. Experience is more related to perception.

Positive is above average amount of PtA, negative is below average, and neutral is the average. Particles form from all three states.

The substance of charge is the affectance that is at a higher or lower average (to the ambient) PtA level. Random affectance, being completely fluid, behaves differently than affectance particles, clusters. Particles have inertia, resilience, and size and charge limits. Due to the charge limits, similarly charged particles migrate away from each other (aka “repel”). Random affectance is only limited by infinity, so adding more higher level PtA into a cloud of a high PtA random affectance field is easy. And the field delays the passage of any such addition more than neutral or negative, causing an accumulation. If the accumulation gets too great, the density factor causes a particle to form, after which no further high PtA can be added to the region and the particle migrates toward lower PtA levels (migrates toward a negative particle if one is around).

When I say “ontology”, I am referring to the collection of coherent thoughts that are believed to be descriptions of the fundamental nature of reality. There can be many different ontologies just as there can be different languages. The ontologies might not be actually true to reality. That would be a different issue. General Relativity and Quantum Physics are ontologies that are only true in separate specific circumstances. In most cases, usefulness is more relevant than trueness.

I didn’t mean it that seriously. I only meant that if you mix ontologies (which people often do) misunderstandings and confusions arise and the mental affectance (PHT) dissolves the ontological structure into a random field of thought rather than solid foundations of understanding. Such is a social engineering technique for disrupting cultural paradigms (most famously Moses vs the Egyptians).

I thought that I had spelled that out already.

I use the word “truth” to refer to thoughts or statements that accurately describe reality, “true to reality”. A thought in a mind is a small polyparticle of PHT (a word being a monoparticle of PHT). I’m not sure what you mean by “find the point of convergence”.

By “3D” do you mean physical 3D models? Or video 3D films?


That is a “3D” emulation of an affectance field. It is more or less what “empty” space would look like if one could see affectance. Realize that there are countless millions of photons passing by in front of your eyes all the time that are invisible to you.

An emulated particle forming in “3D”:

You are not smart at all on this.
We are presenting the same point. If he is smart on that, then it is the same with me.
“Realism” i.e. ‘Philosophical Realism’ a philosophical view is never realistic.

Hahaha :laughing: :laughing:
Wow … #-o
:icon-rolleyes:

Not all phenomena is actually real so some is separate from it

If it is not real, why would Science want to have anything to do with it?

Reality is not a scientific term. Science only deals with what is observed or perceived or experienced. What is physical and has property and dimension and capability
What can be determined through intersubjectivity and potentially falsifiable hypotheses. But none of this equates to reality or what is real because there is no frame of reference for it. Descartes thought that he actually existed and therefore was real but no methodology exists that could determine this. For it is a default position given to be true which can not be objectively demonstrated. The apparent reality we experience could simply be an illusion too subtle or sophisticated for our brains to detect. We have no way of knowing which it is. Although I am a physicalist rather than an idealist. But this is an assumed position not an absolute or objective one