## AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Jakob wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Was there a question in all of that?

No, just a challenge.

Being?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Jakob wrote:
encode_decode wrote:
It looks like some sort of semi-elaborate trap to me - ego based - what is to be gained here?

You got me.

Huh, I was not accusing you of anything. I was accusing the ego of something, can you guess what it is? Knowing what is to be gained can avoid that pain.

Semi-elaborate because it is pretty obvious to a third party.

Whats up with all the images?

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

James S Saint wrote:
Jakob wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Was there a question in all of that?

No, just a challenge.

Being?

Well its in the OP!
I can rephrase it as a question:
How does an infinitesimal affect the next one?
But the challenge assumes that this question is presumed irrelevant, as it is only the "that it happens" that matters for AO, not the "how/why it happens".
Which is the concern for VO.
VO asks: what criteria are there for affecting?

encode_decode wrote:
Jakob wrote:
encode_decode wrote:
It looks like some sort of semi-elaborate trap to me - ego based - what is to be gained here?

You got me.

Huh, I was not accusing you of anything. I was accusing the ego of something, can you guess what it is? Knowing what is to be gained can avoid that pain.

Semi-elaborate because it is pretty obvious to a third party.

Whats up with all the images?

Just playing around.
The ego is itself a trap. I have had to shed my ego entirely in order to illuminate people, because most people who receive intellectual gifts feel they need to reach deep into their assholes, grab hold of as much shit as they can, and throw it at the virtuous bestower. So I have no more "little self" as N calls it, just a "greater self" - my body.

This reduces my reaction, to the shit-tossing-economy which exists below the intellectual economy, to laughter. Hence the pictures. I can't help being amused.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Jakob wrote: How does an infinitesimal affect the next one?
But the challenge assumes that this question is presumed irrelevant, as it is only the "that it happens" that matters for AO, not the "how/why it happens".

I answered in detail "how it happens". Apparently you wanted to ask "Why it happens". That is a different question.

And the answer to that question is the answer to "why is there existence?" (because affecting and existing are the same thing).

There is existence/affecting because it is logically and mathematically impossible for there to not be. And that reasoning is based upon the possibility of absolute homogeneity. Having mathematically proved that absolute homogeneity is impossible, we are left with the unavoidable fact that there are variations in potential-to-affect. All it takes is the slightest variation in PtA and the universe is off and running.

Did you want to see the math again (and again, and...)?

The absolute Impossibility of Nothingness - ever
May 23, 2015
Okay, now given that you have 10 cups with the random possibility of each cup having as many as 10 coins in it, what is the possibility that you have the same number of coins in all 10 cups?

Mathematically that would be $$(1/10)^{10}\quad or\quad 0.0000000001$$
The state of nothingness and the state of absolute homogeneity are actually the same thing. If there is no distinction in affect at all in every point in space, there is no universe. Thus for a universe to exist, there must be distinction or variation in affect between the points in space. What is the possibility that every point in space is of the exact same value of PtA (potential-to-affect)?

Well, let's define the term as the specific infinite series,
$$infA ≡ [1+1+1+...]$$
Just a single infinite line would give us infA² points on that line if you want to include all infinitesimal lengths, all "real numbers". And assuming nothing is forcing any particular PtA value, each point on the line might have a value anywhere from infinitesimal to infinite, the range of that same infA² but for PtA value.

So the possibility for every point on the line to have the same PtA value (given steps of 1 infinitesimal) would be;
$$Possibility \:of \:homogeneous \:line = (1/infA)^{(infA)^2}$$
That is 1 infinitesimal reduced by itself infinitely an infinite number of times. And right there is the issue. Also in 3D space, you actually have the infinite real-number cube (to simplify from spherical) of;
$$Possibility \:of \:homogeneous \:space = (1/infA)^{infA^6}$$
Normally in mathematics if your number has reached 1 infinitesimal, it is accepted as zero and is certainly close enough to zero for all practical purposes but we are literally infinitely less than infinitely less than 1 infinitesimal. For 3D space, we are looking at 1 infinitesimal times itself infinitely and an infinite number of times, infinitely times an infinity of more times, and infinitely times an infinite number more times.

Given an infinity of time (an infinite timeline, another infA² of points in time) and with or without causality, the possibility of running across homogeneity of space is;
$$Possibility \:of \:homogeneity \:through \:all \:space = (1/infA)^{infA^6}$$
$$Possibility \:of \:homogeneity \:through \:all \:space \:and \:all \:time = (1/infA)^{infA^{12}}$$

With a possibility being that degree of infinitely small, not only can it never randomly end up homogeneous even through an infinity of trials (an infinite time line, never getting up to even 1 infinitesimal possibility), but it can't even be forced to be homogeneous. A force is an affect. If all affects are identical, the total affect is zero. What would be left in existence to force all points to be infinitely identical?

But if that isn't good enough for you, realize that those calculations are based on stepped values of merely 1 infinitesimal using a standard of infA. In reality, each step would be as close to absolute zero as possible without actually being absolute zero. Using a standard of as close to absolute infinity as possible,
$$AbsInf ≡ highest \:possible \:number \:toward \:absolute \:infinity.$$
And then of course,
$$1/AbsInf = would \:be \:the \:lowest \:possible \:number \:or \:value.$$

Thus we have,
$$Possibility \:of \:homogeneity \:through \:all \:time = (1/AbsInf)^{Absinf^{12}}$$

Now we have truly absolute zero possibility because if we are already as close to absolute zero as possible with "1/AbsInf", as soon as we multiply that by any fraction, we have breached absolute zero, impossibly small. And we have breached absolute zero by a factor of AbsInf¹² ... well, well beyond absolute zero possibility of homogeneity.

Thus Absolute Homogeneity, "Nothingness", is absolutely impossible.

But such a logic proof or reasoning is actually irrelevant anyway. AO is first a "constructed ontology", an artifact of the mind. It is secondly a "proposed theory" to suggest that the constructed ontology is empirically true to reality. The proof that AO is true to reality comes through its total rational consistency and also its complete alignment with current scientific observations (as well as being able to answer a few science mysteries). The empirical evidence puts the cap on the proof. The logic demanded that AO be true to reality anyway, but empirical verification is always appreciated.

Jakob wrote:Which is the concern for VO.

Okay, so now your turn, what is your answer to the same question, "WHY is there valuing?" (or "what criteria are there" for valuing?).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

JSS wrote:There is existence/affecting because it is logically and mathematically impossible for there to not be.

Here's an interesting question: what does it mean for there to not be existence? What is non-existence? If you're going to say that there is no such a thing as non-existence, you must already know what non-existence is. So what is non-existence? You guys are using these terms all over the place. Surely, you must know what these terms mean?

What most people mean when they say non-existence is a point in time in which a theory (or a model of reality) predicts (or rather determines, generates or causes) no event. That would be general non-existence. There is also specific non-existence. An example would be when someone says there is no tree at some point in space at some point in time. It's specific because there might be something at that point in space at that point in time it's just that it is not a tree. In other words, specific non-existence claims that a specific thing is not to be found at certain point in space at certain point in time. Unlike general non-existence, it does not claim that no thing is to be found at certain point in spacetime.

Of course, these people are not speaking of ANY theory. Nor are they speaking of a theory someone holds to be true. They are speaking of a theory that describes exactly how the universe works. They BELIEVE that there is such a theory. That's their core assumption. Even though "how the universe works" is a meaningless phrase.

The assumption that some theory describes exactly how the universe works cannot be verified, it can only falsified. Which means it is not a proper assumption. Proper assumptions can be both verified and falsified. An example would be an assumption that there is a tree at some place at some point in time. You can test that assumption by looking at that place at that point in time. The tree is either there or it is not. The assumption is proven correct or it is proven incorrect.

There is simply no way to test the assumption that there is a theory that describes exactly the way the universe works. This means that there is no way to test whether any given theory is the one that describes exactly the way the universe works. Which means that there is no way to prove -- mathematically, logically or empirically -- that non-existence is not a feature of such a theory.

So all this talk about how non-existence is logically or mathematically impossible is nothing more than intellectual masturbation.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher

Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Magnus

Allow me to take a stab at a few points you have made - please don't take what I have to say too seriously, I just want to break things up a little.

I would say that it means nothing for there not to be existence. Non-existence is nothing. I think non-existence means nothing.

I would say that there is never a non-existent state at some point in space at some point in time - just an non-configured state at some point in space at some point in time. The existence if treated as a substance is always there but in a different state - the tree always exists but not as a tree. All of the particles that make up the tree are in different states at different points in space and time, and at the points in space and time that the tree exists the particles are configured to a tree state - this obviously always changes so change is also never in a non-existent state.

My humorous attempt is dependent of course by what I mean by state - so definitions become useful at these points in space and time.

If time is a linear dimension then we would have to say that there can only ever be one point in time.

Have you ever considered time to be multidimensional?

How the universe doesn't work is perhaps a more meaningless phrase.

So you are essentially saying that we can only verify things on a smaller scale because the universe is too large to verify.

There is no way to prove nothing - you can only prove something. If there is nothing there to prove >> then nothing can be proved. If there is something there to prove then something can be proved. I hope I am making some sort of sense here.

Intellectual masturbation - I will have to remember that.

Don't mind me, I am just having some . . . well I am not sure what I was trying to achieve.

Perhaps I too was just intellectually masturbating, even though that is not what I was trying to achieve.

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

encode_decode wrote:I would say that it means nothing for there not to be existence. Non-existence is nothing. I think non-existence means nothing.

But in everyday life we often say things such as "there is no this or there is no that" or "this or that does not exist". Do you agree? For example, there are no clowns in my backyard. Are there clowns in your backyard? Do they exist over there? Similarly, I can say that "there are no zombies" or "zombies do not exist" to mean that "I cannot observe zombies anywhere within the environment that I live". What this means is that the concept of non-existence is meaningful. It does have a meaning. The question is only what kind of meaning. And the answer is what I referred to as specific non-existence in my earlier post. Non-existence, in this sense, simply refers to an unmet expectation or to an expectation that you think will be unmet. You expect something to happen at some point in time and that something simply does not happen at that point in time. That's non-existence of whatever you have expected to happen at that point in time.

I would say that there is never a non-existent state at some point in space at some point in time - just an non-configured state at some point in space at some point in time. The existence if treated as a substance is always there but in a different state - the tree always exists but not as a tree. All of the particles that make up the tree are in different states at different points in space and time, and at the points in space and time that the tree exists the particles are configured to a tree state - this obviously always changes so change is also never in a non-existent state.

But if you assume that the universe works according to a set of rules, which means that there is a theory that can represent this set of rules with perfect accuracy, and if you agree, which I am sure everyone will agree, that a theory can predict (or determine) what's going to happen at some points in time and not predict (or determine) what's going to happen at other points in time, then non-existence is possible. Non-existence, in this sense, simply refers to a point in time for which a theory predicts (or determines) no event. Does this make sense? A universal theory, in this sense, is a set of rules that God follows in order to decide the state of the universe at every point in time at every point in space. Existence refers to those points in time for which He makes a decision. The number of these may be finite or infinite. Non-existence refers to those points in time for which He makes no decision. The number of these too may be finite or infinite.

So you are essentially saying that we can only verify things on a smaller scale because the universe is too large to verify.

The universe isn't "too large" to verify. You can verify assumptions regarding things of any size. Sure, it will take a lot of time for the larger ones, but it is still possible to verify them.
The problem is that the concept of universe is not well defined. It has no reference to any particular.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher

Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

I think the difference between AO and VO is that AO explains the Universe in a scientific sense pertaining to objects and forces and VO explains it in a psychological
or philosophical sense pertaining to values. And so consequently I see them as separate from each other though not incompatible. VO is very human centric in a way
that AO is not. For AO would still hold true if human beings did not exist whereas VO would not as it is human beings who give value to ideas pertaining to existence
A life less Universe could not have value because there would be nothing to give it any. The other and definitely most fundamental difference between AO and VO is
that AO is an objective ontology whereas VO is a subjective one. For AO is based upon observation while VO is based upon interpretation. Values are objectively real
but what makes them subjective is the specific set of values a human being may adopt over other sets and also how different human beings will adopt different sets
These can be moral or political or religious or philosophical or any combination thereof. And so to sum up. AO and VO are two ontologies which I do not think should
invite comparison with each other simply because they deal with entirely different aspects of existence. Although each is true from their own particular perspective
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher

Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

surreptitious75 wrote:I think the difference between AO and VO is that AO explains the Universe in a scientific sense pertaining to objects and forces and VO explains it in a psychological or philosophical sense pertaining to values. And so consequently I see them as separate from each other though not incompatible. VO is very human centric in a way that AO is not. For AO would still hold true if human beings did not exist whereas VO would not as it is human beings who give value to ideas pertaining to existence A life less Universe could not have value because there would be nothing to give it any.

The other and definitely most fundamental difference between AO and VO is that AO is an objective ontology whereas VO is a subjective one. For AO is based upon observation while VO is based upon interpretation. Values are objectively real but what makes them subjective is the specific set of values a human being may adopt over other sets and also how different human beings will adopt different sets These can be moral or political or religious or philosophical or any combination thereof. And so to sum up. AO and VO are two ontologies which I do not think should invite comparison with each other simply because they deal with entirely different aspects of existence. Although each is true from their own particular perspective

That is a pretty good superficial analysis. But as you get deeper into AO there is the subject of PHT, "Perception of Hope and Threat". PHT handles all human, animal, governing, and societal behaviors and issues, certainly including any registered values.

In RM:AO:Psychology, PHT is the psychological parallel of positive (hope) and negative (threat) affectance (aka "charge"). Throughout AO:Physics whenever positive or negative PtA levels or positive and negative charged particles are mentioned, there is an exact parallel pertaining to psychological, sociological, governing, and economical behaviors and issues. AO:PHT is RM:AO's version of VO and virtually identical except that AO:PHT includes a great deal more precise details as to how, why, and how much. Human and animal values are assigned due to perceptions of hope and threat. I could go around saying that atoms "maintain their existence by perceiving hope and threat", but ....
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

I would not compare positive and negative particles with positive and negative psychological states as they are entirely different things
Particles do not have consciousness and are not capable of emotion so are not the same as human beings. And trying to equate the two
makes this aspect of AO appear rather fuzzy. In science physics and biology and psychology are treated as separate domains. Therefore
having separate and distinct ones for AO would make it a better ontology. Since it would have more clarity and be easier to understand
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher

Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

surreptitious75 wrote:I would not compare positive and negative particles with positive and negative psychological states as they are entirely different things.

Although it takes far more than merely the proposal in order to clearly see the analogy, it is certain that the principles governing PHT are an exact parallel to the principles that govern inanimate positive and negative effects (and "particles").

An example of a psychological "particle" would be a traumatic impact that has left a specific phobia within the psyche of an individual. The make of the phobia in PHT terms is identical to the make of a physical subatomic particle, specifically a "traffic jam" of concerns centered around and spreading from a peak of concern (the threat-engrams left by the trauma). What is "affectance" in physical terms is also "affectance" in psychological terms (concurrent psychology) although most often applied to merely infants. RM:AO expands the use of the general concept of affectance.

surreptitious75 wrote:Particles do not have consciousness and are not capable of emotion so are not the same as human beings. And trying to equate the two makes this aspect of AO appear rather fuzzy. In science physics and biology and psychology are treated as separate domains. Therefore having separate and distinct ones for AO would make it a better ontology. Since it would have more clarity and be easier to understand

I'm sure that we agree on that, hence:
RM
RM:AO/Physics
RM:AO/Psychology
RM:AO/Sociology
RM:AO/Economics
.
.
.

And actually, to be even more organized, one can realize that physics grows into mechanics and chemistry which grow into physiology and biology while psychology grows into mind and emotion which grow into strategy and sociology which grows into politics and economics.
RM:AO/Physics (PtA oriented)
_ Mechanics
_ Chemistry
___ Physiology
___ Biology

RM:AO/Psychology (PHT oriented)
_ Mind
_ Emotion
___ Strategy (Gaming, Sports, Combat,...)
___ Sociology
_____ Politics
_____ Economics

Other than funding and professorships, RM:AO is an entire university.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Magnus

I can not argue against what you are saying when you say that in everyday life we are often referring to "things" that do not exist. I would say however that when we are referring to things not existing in everyday life that we can be specific about that but only because we have a reference of things existing - to say that clowns are not in your backyard is still to invent clowns, just that their existence is confined to your statement, and your statement is confined to a thought, which in turn is confined to both the brain and mind, which exist. So even when we say things do not exist, we have just given the things we talk about existence, no matter how temporary by stating it - that "things" do not exist. We are also saying clowns relative to the backyard - a story for another day.

Real non-existence is nothing - because it has not been referenced.

I do understand what you are saying and I am going to veer off track a little and this is not the only time that I have used the following as an example to illustrate something but I will say that each time has been enjoyable. An answer must exist before a question - why? Because, how can you find something that does not exist? This means that what you are saying is also true because if an answer expresses a non-existent outcome then the answer has brought into reality a non-existent outcome except now the outcome does exist because it has been stated - the answer was there to be found.

You are making sense in what you are saying - I hope I am making sense too.

I can only assume that the universe does operate according to a set of relatively basic laws - I would say the laws are a lot more basic than the totality of the outcome of the universe. With the universe in constant change this outcome must have changed countless times in the past. I would also say that in nearly every theory we humans have managed to invent there is a missing law and to me that is the missing law of the missing - this I believe is an artifact of our own logic working against us - but to work without it, is to always come up short, with every theory and indeed every law, no matter how correct a theory and/or law seems.

Magnus wrote:The universe isn't "too large" to verify. You can verify assumptions regarding things of any size. Sure, it will take a lot of time for the larger ones, but it is still possible to verify them. The problem is that the concept of universe is not well defined. It has no reference to any particular.

You are correct - somehow though I sense that our logic is still working against us

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Encode Decode wrote:I can not argue against what you are saying when you say that in everyday life we are often referring to "things" that do not exist. I would say however that when we are referring to things not existing in everyday life that we can be specific about that but only because we have a reference of things existing - to say that clowns are not in your backyard is still to invent clowns, just that their existence is confined to your statement, and your statement is confined to a thought, which in turn is confined to both the brain and mind, which exist. So even when we say things do not exist, we have just given the things we talk about existence, no matter how temporary by stating it - that "things" do not exist.

True. But when we speak of non-existence we speak of non-existence at certain point in space at certain point in time. There is no doubt that at the time when we speak of clowns in a backyard there is at the very least mental existence.

Because, how can you find something that does not exist?

There is no way to inductively infer general non-existence from any kind of evidence. This is due to the manner induction works. Recall that "general non-existence" refers to a point in time for which a theory predicts no event. It might be a bit more specific than that and refer to a point in spacetime for which a theory predicts no-thing. It does not matter. What creates the problem is that induction is about assigning probability values to possibilities of any kind. It places no restriction on what kind of possibilities we can assign a probability value. It can be any kind of possibility so as long it is a proper possibility i.e. it refers to something that can be experienced. If a possibility does not refer to something that can be experienced then its probability cannot be determined and is therefore meaningless.

For example, you can ask "what is the probability that the Earth will be hit by an asteriod within next ten years?" This question refers to a proper possibility because the Earth being hit by an asteriod within next ten years is something that we can experience. And it does not have to be "within next ten years". It can be "within next any number of years". Whatever number you choose, the possibility will still be proper. Also, it does not have to refer to a point in the future. It can also refer to a point in the past. Even though we cannot travel back in time, and thus test the possibility through direct observation, we can still determine its probability using induction and whatever evidence we have.

What all of this means is that a theory can make any kind of predictions that are of interest to us regardless of what evidence we possess. If we want to know what's going to happen in the next centillion years then induction will allow us to do that regardless of what kind of evidence we possess. Thus, if a theory DOES NOT predict an event at some point in time, it's merely because whoever devised it had no interest in predicting it.

People who ask questions such as "does the universe have a beginning and an end?" meaning "does the theory that represents with perfect accuracy the manner in which the universe works predicts a finite or an infinite number of events in time?" these people are oblivious to this fact. Which is why they keep asking such meaningless questions.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher

Posts: 4721
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

James S Saint wrote:
Jakob wrote:Which is the concern for VO.

Okay, so now your turn, what is your answer to the same question, "WHY is there valuing?" (or "what criteria are there" for valuing?).

Still waiting.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

You don't mean to say that you cast a challenge to me that you couldn't answer to yourself?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Ahaha.

Shut the hell up, false one. You only amuse yourself, except that you aren't even doing that anymore. Death only breeds maggots.

Let's contrast your deathmaggotry with something else;

EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ

URUZ
Philosopher

Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

UrGod wrote:Ahaha.

Shut the hell up, false one. You only amuse yourself, except that you aren't even doing that anymore. Death only breeds maggots.

So as his fanatical representative, you are offering an answer?
James S Saint wrote:
Jakob wrote:Which is the concern for VO.

Okay, so now your turn, what is your answer to the same question, "WHY is there valuing?" (or "what criteria are there" for valuing?).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Nothing to say?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Obviously the nihilstic VO doesn't have more to offer than a handful of megalomaniac solipsists with occasional tantrums.

Leyla

Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:58 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Kek
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ

URUZ
Philosopher

Posts: 2051
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

James S Saint wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Jakob wrote:Which is the concern for VO.

Okay, so now your turn, what is your answer to the same question, "WHY is there valuing?" (or "what criteria are there" for valuing?).

Still waiting.

It doesn't work with respect to VO. VO is, as Ive explained a few hundred times since 2011, and which dozens of quicker minds already picked up on, the resolution of the question "why".

People with the courage to know their own valuing are permitted use of VO. Others, evidently should be very wary.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Jakob wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Okay, so now your turn, what is your answer to the same question, "WHY is there valuing?" (or "what criteria are there" for valuing?).

Still waiting.

And I answered that question with great detail, many years ago and again on this thread, remember?

Jakob wrote:It doesn't work with respect to VO.

Yes. That seems to be the case. VO is without explanation, despite:
Jakob wrote:Which is the concern for VO.

Your statement that it is of concern for VO.
Yet you have no answer for it??

Jakob wrote: VO is, as Ive explained a few hundred times since 2011, and which dozens of quicker minds already picked up on, the resolution of the question "why".

Oh, I see. It is "the resolution to why". I take that to mean that "it just is", as you accused of RM:AO. You presume it to need no explanation?

If you meant something else, please explain.

Jakob wrote:People with the courage to know their own valuing are permitted use of VO. Others, evidently should be very wary.

Try to leave your ego and threats out of it. As you said, "if we stick to logic, we can get along".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

As long as you believe it yourself, and can sleep tight.

Love ya man.
Take care.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

So I will be leaving behind AO, as it does not want to adapt to reality, it doesn't want to self-value, it doesn't respond to actual terms, it doesn't itself affect. I just tried to get it to affect by confronting it with reality. But things really have to be real for that. (Logically, first a thing has to be real, then it can affect, unlike AO's presumed order, which is a heavy handed reversal of logic, demanding the conclusion to sufficiently prescribe the conditions.)

VO gets the "why" ontoglogized. It recognizes the question itself as existent.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
And yet it took over 2500 years.

Bad habit - philosophy disregarding itself. Ive forced it to quit that habit.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Next time you choose to cast a challenge, you might consider first ensuring that you can answer to it yourself.

And when and if you ever wake up from your delusion, try to figure out why you ever decided to be an enemy. You will be surprised and a bit disheartened by the reality of it.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext