Structural Inadequacy in AO qua QM, Grounds to VO

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Structural Inadequacy in AO qua QM, Grounds to VO

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Nov 25, 2020 1:07 am

so,
affectance ontology is a statistical algorithm based on the axiomatic values of infinitesimals.
A Newtonian universe, with its perfect proportions and smoothly gliding systems, would possibly be perfectly implicated in such a formula.
The paradigm of Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg and the other quantum observers, is based on the observation that the increase and decrease of powers in a body is not a smooth transient but rather consists of actual steps. This requires a different math, things can not be rounded off, because the differences are structural when they are numerical rather than "spatial". Primes can be studied at work in the behavior of compounds as secret resistors, hidden possibilities which come out only in very large computations can be expected. The universe would be highly dimensionalized even at a primordial level.
We would be even smaller than we are taught and yet, as mathematicians, might be greater than anything could be in a transient universe.

The numerical basis of the physical universe is rather a study of values; additions and multiplications, comparisons and categorizations, random values to differentials like tastes to biological balances, a world only decipherable through integrity of observation with respect to interpretation, as an a priori intuition. (normally the order is reversed except in such things as NLP and executive office training programs as well as brainwashing programs like mass religion and media, it is thus implicit in education but not a MO, it is on the lower side of the veil, the student must still pierce the veil with his own will)
So there, as I do not doubt that James is a great scientist, and his technologies are very likely true and worthy of being known by the world, I refute the ontology of affectance infinitesimals on the basis of the findings of Bohr, Heisenberg and Planck, and the others. Their world is the true world, which is to say >the illusion<. That which we must transcend if we are to be part of it.

All that matters is the quantum of power that you are. All else is dyscalculia.



A very important note here; I do not assert or think necessarily that numerical is an exclusive quality. I would think the universe is not sufficiently defined as having a numerical engine. Quality is implied by the presence of value, as well. Even if perhaps only a single quality.
Pushing this rather crucial point which can not possibly be conclusively decided, I am not sure that numericalness could count as this single quality. Not sure that it cant either. How the hell could I begin to discern anything in the very beginning without presumption? But that is what mathematics really is, observing without interpreting. There is great beauty in that, perhaps the same beauty is in the fact of numbers. Perhaps all the subtlety and sense in the world is a numbers game. Perhaps that is why guys who play numbers enjoy themselves so much. Interesting. In short there is no gamble to AO, no shortcuts, no wormholes, no luck and no unfairness - all is just consequence quantities. But numbers are not merely quantities, they are structures, they have greater and lesser integrities.

Numbers are thus a priori to any affective quality. The number two is a priori to any interaction whatsoever. And yet the number 1 exists. Even if he is hard to see...
The strong act as they may, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Structural Inadequacy in AO qua QM, Grounds to VO

Postby Dan~ » Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:29 am

Good luck trying to identify reality.
[ i read your whole post ]
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
ImageImage
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10530
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: Structural Inadequacy in AO qua QM, Grounds to VO

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:23 am

Dan~ wrote:Good luck trying to identify reality.
[ i read your whole post ]




It's simple as 1-2-3

( self) as image-concept-&-role. Some mixes 'em differently, that's all. Though I may be wrong.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8380
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Structural Inadequacy in AO qua QM, Grounds to VO

Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:10 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:so,
affectance ontology is a statistical algorithm based on the axiomatic values of infinitesimals.

I didn't get that out of it. Reading through his work I saw very little reference to statistics and far far more reference to logic, concept defining, and consistency.

And I don't understand how an ontology (if I have come to understand that word - a set of concepts and their relations) can be an algorithm - a set of instructions.

Fixed Cross wrote:The paradigm of Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg and the other quantum observers, is based on the observation that the increase and decrease of powers in a body is not a smooth transient but rather consists of actual steps.

This requires a different math, things can not be rounded off

I was taught that QM is a speculative theory based on some observations of many things naturally falling into statistically averaged quantities (a fictitious measure). The speculation was then taken to the theoretical idea that ALL things are quantified by these fictitious averaged quantities. And numbers fit easily when things are quantified (a number IS a quantity). The problem that I see is that the quantities are all merely averages and so never actually representative of reality. QM stereotyped objects and events so as to make it easier to crudely calculate while AO takes every event as infinitely unique.

James wasn't a pigeonhole racist type but seemed to prefer thinking of every individual as unique. That is much more difficult and requires the measure of infinitesimal differences. So it makes sense that he would have an ontology with that same mind.

It looks to me that you have them backwards. The QM is about numbers (already "rounded off" by averaging) and statistics while AO is about almost undefinable and infinitesimal measures that cannot be rounded off.

QM says that thought is physical reality. AO says thought crudely represents physical reality and proposes refinements to those thoughts.

QM is like identity politics whereas AO is more like lawyers in a court defending constitutional individual rights. Identity politics is simple minded pigeonholing, categorizing, and racism.

Fixed Cross wrote:Numbers are thus a priori to any affective quality. The number two is a priori to any interaction whatsoever. And yet the number 1 exists. Even if he is hard to see...

Aren't numbers just a tool for thinking and communicating (had to lookup "a priori")? They represent concepts not perfect physical realities or qualities. We can say that we have 2 coins or people because we think of them as being essentially equal for our purpose but in reality we know that they are not truly and exactly identical. James was talking about what was exactly true to reality so he had to examine infinitesimal differences and he came up with his "infA" standard to bring the two concerns of physical reality and useful communicating together.

I haven't looked into your VO project. This online participation has already taken 10 times more time than I was expecting. It seems that participating is far more addictive than merely observing. At some point I can see that I will have to pull back. I can't allow myself to forfeit work, wife, and wealth just to haggle with people online.

Is VO a quantum thing where everything is in set discrete quantities like in QM?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Structural Inadequacy in AO qua QM, Grounds to VO

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:58 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:so,
affectance ontology is a statistical algorithm based on the axiomatic values of infinitesimals.

I didn't get that out of it. Reading through his work I saw very little reference to statistics and far far more reference to logic, concept defining, and consistency.

And I don't understand how an ontology (if I have come to understand that word - a set of concepts and their relations) can be an algorithm - a set of instructions.

Fixed Cross wrote:The paradigm of Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg and the other quantum observers, is based on the observation that the increase and decrease of powers in a body is not a smooth transient but rather consists of actual steps.

This requires a different math, things can not be rounded off

I was taught that QM is a speculative theory based on some observations of many things naturally falling into statistically averaged quantities (a fictitious measure). The speculation was then taken to the theoretical idea that ALL things are quantified by these fictitious averaged quantities. And numbers fit easily when things are quantified (a number IS a quantity). The problem that I see is that the quantities are all merely averages and so never actually representative of reality. QM stereotyped objects and events so as to make it easier to crudely calculate while AO takes every event as infinitely unique.

James wasn't a pigeonhole racist type but seemed to prefer thinking of every individual as unique. That is much more difficult and requires the measure of infinitesimal differences. So it makes sense that he would have an ontology with that same mind.

It looks to me that you have them backwards. The QM is about numbers (already "rounded off" by averaging) and statistics while AO is about almost undefinable and infinitesimal measures that cannot be rounded off.

QM says that thought is physical reality. AO says thought crudely represents physical reality and proposes refinements to those thoughts.

QM is like identity politics whereas AO is more like lawyers in a court defending constitutional individual rights. Identity politics is simple minded pigeonholing, categorizing, and racism.

Fixed Cross wrote:Numbers are thus a priori to any affective quality. The number two is a priori to any interaction whatsoever. And yet the number 1 exists. Even if he is hard to see...

Aren't numbers just a tool for thinking and communicating (had to lookup "a priori")? They represent concepts not perfect physical realities or qualities. We can say that we have 2 coins or people because we think of them as being essentially equal for our purpose but in reality we know that they are not truly and exactly identical. James was talking about what was exactly true to reality so he had to examine infinitesimal differences and he came up with his "infA" standard to bring the two concerns of physical reality and useful communicating together.

I haven't looked into your VO project. This online participation has already taken 10 times more time than I was expecting. It seems that participating is far more addictive than merely observing. At some point I can see that I will have to pull back. I can't allow myself to forfeit work, wife, and wealth just to haggle with people online.

Is VO a quantum thing where everything is in set discrete quantities like in QM?



So, my abbreviated informal sense has not much merit , in terms of VO, as mediated by quantum and qualia based interpretation, or maybe it is a disservice to the very physical foundations of it?

did talk to James, during His tenure here and informed me that the uniqueness assigned is duplicated by at least another exact copy.

Can You make sense of that?


This makes perfect sense to me:

"Numbers are thus a priori to any affective quality. The number two is a priori to any interaction whatsoever. And yet the number 1 exists. Even if he is hard to see..."
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8380
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Structural Inadequacy in AO qua QM, Grounds to VO

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:58 am

Meno_ wrote:did talk to James, during His tenure here and informed me that the uniqueness assigned is duplicated by at least another exact copy.

Can You make sense of that?

I think I know what you are referring to. My take on that idea was the following -

James was (in different words) explaining that if you found a bush with exactly 1000 leaves there would be a very high probability that there would be another bush on Earth also with exactly 1000 leaves. And throughout an infinite 3D universe, there would necessarily be "an infinity" of such bushes.

Also if you counted the number of atoms in a grain of sand there would be another grain of sand on Earth with that exact same number of atoms. And again throughout an infinite 3D universe there would necessarily (mathematically) be an infinity of grains with that exact same amount.

When it comes to a person he was saying that if you count and measure the exact atom types, conditions, and positions throughout the entire body there might not be another identical person with those same qualities on Earth but throughout the entire infinite 3D universe there certainly would be an exact copy - exact same appearance, standing in the exact same position, saying the exact same thing, and thinking the exact same thing.

That is happening because in each case the object was given a quantified, discrete number of items and measures. And we can know it is true from a simple statistics formula. Any definite or discrete number divided into infinity will yield infinity.

But James also pointed out that in a very short time each copy will no longer be exactly the same because each has a different environment influencing it and every atom was not measured to an infinite degree of accuracy so some would behave very slightly different than others. Very shortly each copy would take a different route just like with the bushes, pretty shortly each bush would have a different number of leaves than the others.

So it seems obvious to me that given a 3D infinite universe there will certainly be, at any one moment, an infinity of copies of every person somewhere out there (more than an infinity). And also within a very short time all of those will no longer be exact copies but a different set of copies will form that were not quite exact yet.

His conclusion was that every person always exists in every state they have ever been in - "somewhere out there". And I see no flaw in his math. It is pretty simple and straight forward.

And I don't remember now for sure but I think that he also concluded that even if you measured every person to an "infA" degree of accuracy there would still be an infA (or more) number of copies out there. Rather than using atoms, he used measures of "affectance" to come to the same conclusion. I don't think he can be wrong about that.

I hope that is what you were referring to. :-?

Meno_ wrote:"Numbers are thus a priori to any affective quality.

Wouldn't that be true only if you include something like "infA" as a "number"? Otherwise you are assuming that everything in reality is quantified. And I don't see why I would believe that everything in reality is quantified (QM). James' argument against that was pretty simple and seemingly sound. He explained that both QM and Relativity are merely convenient ways of thinking about the universe for sake of the maths but they don't always fit reality. He proposed that his Affectance necessarily always fits reality (because reality IS affectance).

Meno_ wrote:The number two is a priori to any interaction whatsoever. And yet the number 1 exists. Even if he is hard to see..."

I think James would say that the number one could not exist unless there was already a number two ("nothing can exist unless it is affecting something else that exists").
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Structural Inadequacy in AO qua QM, Grounds to VO

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:26 pm

Obsrvr,

If there exists an exact replication of an infinite number of universes (which is required to make an exact person), then all of those universes are exactly the same, if they are exactly the same, then there can only be one of them.

Now, in terms of sensory acuity in a very small bandwidth, yes, they appear the same, but when you look closer or step back, they are different.

An infinite number of worlds acting exactly the exact same, requires an infinite number of universes acting the exact same, and that is NOT affectance!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11534
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Structural Inadequacy in AO qua QM, Grounds to VO

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:41 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Obsrvr,
If there exists an exact replication of an infinite number of universes

I subscribe to the ontology that has only one "universe" = all things.

Ecmandu wrote: (which is required to make an exact person)

Why should we believe that theory?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am


Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]