Where does meaning come from?

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

Ask any scientist if his experiment is real.
See what he says.

A scientist could not say whether their experiment was real or not because real is not a scientific concept as I have already stated
We use real to describe what we perceive and experience but there is no reliable methodology for determining if it is actually real
Sense organs do not experience everything and perception is entirely subjective and so we cannot be entirely certain about reality
Despite this we take our experiences and perceptions to be true since they are so convincing that we accept them unconditionally
But being convinced of something has no bearing on how true it actually is

We aren’t talking about whether science is actually correct or true. We are talking about whether they believe in a reality with which they are experimenting. They know that even if they are wrong, they could only be wrong if there was a “right” to be wrong about. That “right” would be the “real”. They cannot experiment on the unreal, nonexistent. And they know that. So they most certainly believe in a reality, whether they can ever understand it properly or not. Realism is the stance that there is “A Reality” to at least try to understand.

Else you have a really strange definition of “reality”.

All I am saying is that science only investigates observable phenomena not reality. Less you are a solipsist or an idealist you will accept what you experience
as reality and this is just as true of scientists as anyone else. But when they are doing actual science then the notion of reality becomes irrelevant. Science
is the most exacting discipline outside of mathematics so terms have to be as precise as possible. Reality is a philosophical term as the nature of existence
is philosophical while the study of observable phenomena is scientific. And this distinction is important as science and philosophy are different disciplines

You seem to have the terms a bit backwards.

The solipsist is the one who accepts ONLY what he experiences as the only form of reality. His “experiences” are all in his mind. There is no “outside reality”. And that is the exact opposite of the realist who claims that there is a reality “out there”

Nonsense. A scientist has no need to study an unreal phenomenon. His entire purpose and intent is to discover what is or is not real. It is sheer nonsense to think that a scientist doesn’t care about what is real or not.

Oh, for heaven’s sake. Science is one particular philosophy, a philosophy of verification of hypotheses about Reality. Science studies the nature of reality by observing phenomenon. What did you think General Relativity was all about? And the statistics involved? And when they go to form a hypothesis, what is the hypothesis going to be about, if not about reality?

What is your definition of “reality”? Because you are not making any sense at all concerning scientists and what they do.

And how can a phenomenon even exist and yet not be part of reality?

You are correct, reality does not equate to experience and experience is more related to perception.

Experience and perception are parts of reality . . .

Science only studies observable phenomena and nothing else
Whether they be part of reality or not is irrelevant to science

Ahh…

As I’ve stated before, if you state all the positives and negatives, you are left with no truth, and that is a truth, so truth always wins.

In terms of the topic at hand, something is really what it is or it is a real mirage of what it is, either way it is real.