Where does meaning come from?

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.

Don’t :laughing: too soon.
You are merely demonstrating your views are stupid [philosophically].

As I had stated ‘Philosophical Realism’ a philosophical view which claim its view are representing reality. The claim of ‘Philosophical Realism’ that there is a reality independent of the human conditions in not a possibility and absurd.

Philosophically, a Philosophical Realist [like yourself] is merely an empirical idealist, as what is really ‘real’ to the so-claimed 'realist [philosophical] is only restricted to the processed sense-data in the mind. What is claimed as the real thing, i.e. outside the mind is merely a speculation and an impossibility to be real to the philosophical realist.

What is realistic must be justified as ‘real’ i.e.
real = actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact.
“Exist” is not a predicate, so it must be predicated on some grounds.
Thus ‘real’ must be predicated to a ground.

What is real to Science is Scientific Reality and never ‘reality’ per se.
Scientific reality is always conditioned to its Framework and System. As far as scientific theories are concern, they do not represent reality per se but merely scientific reality.

What is real to the common layman is the conditioned by common sense.
What is real to a philosopher is dependent on the philosophical perspective adopted for consideration.

A scientist who is a parent will not adopt a scientific reality framework when interacting with his/her babies, toddlers and those alikes. A scientist will only wears the scientist hat for his scientific works.

Show me a ‘thing’ you claimed as real that is absolutely & totally unconditioned by any Framework and System of Cognition. If you can do so you would have proven Kant’s central thesis i.e. “no thing-in-itself” wrong.

You need to differentiate the perspective of the scientists and the Philosophy of Science.

Scientists per se do not give a damn with Philosophy of Science but merely will comply with the requirements of the Scientific Framework and System [Methods, peer pressure, etc.]
Within the Scientific Framework and System there is only the ASSUMPTION of total reality [as defined by scientists not philosophers]. Science has no grounds to claim such an ASSUMEd total reality exists except for the parts of it that is proven from their theories.

As far as Scientists are concern, note surreptitious75’s

From a philosophical POV, re Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures [hypothesis] open to further polishing or be discarded. Thus whatever the concept of reality one attributed to Science, it is a conditioned reality never reality per-se.

Another point is, Science ASSUMED there is total reality but it is implied [humbly] such a total reality will never be known fully by Science.

Yeah, it is merely about an ASSUMED reality that is an impossibility to be really real but merely qualified to scientific theories which are at best polished conjectures.

Oh I’m afraid that you beat me to that one.

Totally irrelevant (and thus “stupid”).

Science’s assumption is their philosophical stance - “Realism”.

Interesting, understandable concept. Given this insolubility, do PtA and PHT ever finally intersect in your understanding?

You accept the status quo definition of truth as a relation. I think my approach—truth as an actual, dynamic quality that inhabits the essence of things and powers existence—has created a lot difficulties in trying to discuss the idea, probably also due to the fact [among others] that I tend to mix ontological and epistemological issues like most non-philosophers.

Point of convergence was just reference to subject matter of question in previous paragraph.

I think I’d better back off posting and study further, apparently am not putting pieces of AO together correctly.

I’ve been tinkering with this approach to understanding reality lately:

what what a thing is
how how things work
why why things work as they do

such that in the world I picture….
What truth as dynamic potential (force)
How provides thatness to particulars by producing dynamic point-locales (from Particularity) [energies; particulars] populated by assets (from Value)[forces; qualities, attributes, properties] of two kinds:
i. descriptive forces (physical properties)
ii. prescriptive forces (moral properties)
Why existence arranged due to truth’s fundamental organizing, coordinating nature (cohere, unify, fit together, unite, coalesce, etc.) Its forces form particulars (abstract and concrete) at point-locales, bundles of energies and forces whose interactions are an orchestration of internal or value-bearing energies (existents) with external force (Form). Truth as force forms factual energies, all of which bear descriptive assets, and some of which [organics] also bear prescriptive assets.

I’ve taken your descriptions of how AO uses PtA, PHT, Affectance [what] and its mechanics (above average ambient PtA=positive, below = negative, balanced = neutral, etc.) as “how”, but don’t understand “why” it works the way it does. What and how are ontological parameters, maybe why is more epistemological. Another possible problem is that how (methodology) is often framed in or leads to intuitive “whys”, but these are just parts of how things work and isn’t the sort of why I’m trying to understand.

In my thinking, placing truth as a fundamental cause [why] rather than relation [mental construct associated with “how”] seems to provide an explanatory model for the “what-how-why” prototype. If things develop naturally they just “are” and “why” need not exist; whats and hows are sufficient, why is just because stuff “is” and works as it does, e.g., laws of science. For example (though I know you have a disagreement in function here) to the observer, equal numbers of electrons and protons produce a stable atom due to attract-repel electromagnetic forces at work. The whats are protons and electrons as points combined into a particle, intuitive how is emf, with whats and hows populating each successive step. I just can’t grasp the why.

I was watching your 2D videos when this thought crossed my mind, was trying to imagine Affectance formation and its fundamental workings from different angles or viewpoints on the grid. One interesting idea I got from videos—if I have it right—is that of the universe as a pool or grid of PtA essentially “holding still” while affectance “affect upon affect” is merely fashioned and populates different/successive points on the grid, suggesting the illusion of movement. Somewhat like the hole theory of electrical current [electron] “movement” in a conductor?