Yes, and that is precisely the issue.
The whole of development of Artificial Intelligence is grounded on this simple but wrong premise that - Multipication of quantity can develop quality.
But, they would never able to develop True AI, no matter how much money and time they put into it.
with love,
sanjay
Not that I entirely understood most of your post, but Sanjay, you seem to be making a great many assertions, statements as facts, without backing up any of them. One claim you have made is that I am assuming something before the logic begins. Tell me what that is. Another is that all things are not being considered. Really? Tell me what isn’t being considered.
It is easy to make such claims and imagine them. That is why so very many people do. And as far as evidence vs logic, just try to provide some evidence that entails no logic first. Easy to fantasize, impossible to do.
Show me the evidence of your logic-less evidence.
Allow me to get straight to the point.
Zinnati – " These laws are Affectance itself, because, in his software, he has to take the premise of one affecting its neighbour for granted, in one way or other. "
Precisely. And here is where VO parts from RM.
RM, whether James likes it or not, proposes entities, bits of PtA. Even if they may only represent a function in the formula of change, they are formulated as existent things, if only for an infinitesimal period.
In RM, the entities are forced to affect each other, by their very nature of being PtA.
In VO, no entity is forced to affect the other. It can only affect the other if there is a shared quality.
We are getting to the bottom of why VO describes observed existence at a more bare-bone level of necessity than either scientific causality, James’ PtA, or Nietzsche’s WtP. RM makes the same assumption as Nietzsche - that all affects all “just because it is so”.
Nothing shows us that this is in fact so, and nothing shows us how this would be logical.
VO came as an answer to the question: how does one quantum of power “recognize” the other? How can one bit of power even connect to another?
RM says: because that is all they are - potential to affect. Nietzsche says the same: that is all they are: will to power / power to will (these are the same, Sanjay, in Nietzsche’s understanding. Just a word).
But this answer did not satisfy me. Who is to say that there aren’t a trillion other forms of affecting, of influencing? Who is to say everything affects everything? I don’t see any reason to think that. Thus, I found out the key formula: value.
Something only affects something else if there is a shared value. Bit A only overpowers bit B if bit B carries something that bit A can “make his own”. Bit A needs a standard to connect to bit B.
There needs to be a shared terms. In other words, contact on the grounds of quality enables contact in terms of quantity.
Definitional Logic.
Existence is DEFINED as that which has Affect.
It is NOT an “assumption”. It is a DEFINITION of what it means to exist. Thus BY DEFINITION anything that exists must affect. If a proposed entity is not affecting anything whatsoever, it does not exist. The PtA is merely a measure of how much affect it can have at any one point in space and time.
On the absolute most fundamental level of existence, there isn’t anything to be affected other than that ability to affect. Thus you have the most fundamental existence as the affecting of the ability to affect, “PtA” and its being affected, “Affectance”. All else is derived from that level as complex arrangements arise.
" Existence is DEFINED as that which has Affect. "
Even if I accept that definition, it is not said, it does no logically follow that all that has affect, affects all other things that have affect.
There must be shared terms, quality. There can theoretically be (and likely, there are) separate realms of affectance.
Here is where VO becomes necessary - to explain how one concentration of PtA can affect another. That is precisely why I arrived at it, except I worked off Nietzsche’s will to power concept instead of RM, which to my knowledge didn’t exist then.
Well that opens a can of worms…
Whether all things affect all other things is irrelevant at this point. We can go through that issue, but right now, it is beside the point.
There certainly is. There are exactly two (in RM:AO).
When talking within any specific ontology, whatever that ontology defines a word to mean is exactly what that word means and is a FACT, not an assumption or theory. If in VO the word “value” is defined to mean something specific, then that is exactly what “value” IS within that ontology. The point is to construct the ontology using such defined concepts and then compare it with observations for verification (aka “Science”).
So in RM:AO, if a proposed something has no affect at all on anything, it does not exist by definition. In other ontologies, such as the Quantum Magi’s version of reality that I was just explaining to Eugene or perhaps in VO, concepts are defined differently. When speaking to those people, their words mean what their words have been defined to mean to them and that is all there is to it. Within an ontology any defined concept is an absolute fact.
In RM:AO there are two realms of existence; Conceptual and Physical.
The conceptual realm is the realm of concepts such as the perfect circle, line, or square. Physical reality cannot possess such entities. And within that conceptual realm, those entities never, ever change. The affecting within the conceptual realm is the affect of concepts. What the concept of a straight line is affects the concept of what a square is. If one were to change, the other would have to immediately change with it. But in the conceptual realm, time doesn’t exist because time is a measure of change and there are no changes in the conceptual realm of existence.
When and if anything at all changes, it becomes a part of the physical realm. The physical realm includes any and all changing and is made entirely of such changing, “Affectance”.
Logically there can only be that which changes and that which doesn’t (not counting any possible switching back and forth that might be going on). Thus there are only those two realms of existence within RM:AO.
It is all very similar, but not exactly identical to the Socrates, Plato, Aristotle ontology;
In RM:AO, both of those “worlds” are real, merely distinct realms of existence. Everything within each affects other things within the same realm.
For the Quantum Magi (Bohr, de Broglie, and such), the conceptual realm of the mind is the ONLY reality and the physical realm doesn’t exist at all except as an illusion. That is why there is so very much metaphor in scriptures. They speak of the conceptual as the physical because that is what they believe to be the only real. And that is what keeps literalist so confused. To the authors of the Torah, Ahdam was a person in concept and thus Ahdam IS a person. An “angel”, being a concept, is more real than a physical tree. And a “tree” in scriptures is the concept of a tree, not what you would call a real physical tree which is to them merely an irrelevant illusion of your mind. Most Westerners don’t pick up on that.
I think when and if you come to understand the details of RM:AO, you will see that VO is not necessary for that function. As I have explained in the past, the VO ontology is fine in and of itself, but I believe that there is nothing covered in VO that RM:AO doesn’t also cover. The reverse is not true at this point.
And btw, what I refer to as “PtA” is the first, most fundamental, and only value. All other values stem as a more complex form of that same value, the potential to affect. Everything that you value is only valued by you due to the potential it has. You value the food that you eat because it has the potential to affect your health, your happiness, your power, your appearance, your future, or whatever. If you believed it to have no potential at all, you would not value it (you would not pay money for something that had no “worth”, aka “value”, aka “potential”).
FC and James,
FC rightly pointed out that we have been reached at the crux of our differences; RM, VO and perhaps ME (?) too.
Given your wisdom, i am more than sure of that. I know that you can very well understand the intention behind the words.
No. PTA are not entities in RM, but a concept only, where affectance actualizes as entities. It is S (space) of TSM.
FC, though i have not heard much of RM from James, but i think that even RM postulates different types of particles, both in the terms of quality and quantity. Furthermore, RM also suggests that likewiseness forces particles to come together, and that is precisely the explanation of gravitation in RM. So, in a way, RM also considers that same value holding particles are fond of or intereact with each other.
It looks to me that RM does not contradict VO, but says that the stage of VO comes later, when the ambient has enough particles of different quality and quantity.
Thus, i do not think that your objection of the lacking of the quality of shared terms is valid. Though, James is the final authority to have a say on this issue.
Each and every ontology ( RM or VO ) must have some basic premises or declared definitions as James put it, as no one can run without it. And, i do not see anyting wrong in it. But, at this stage, you may call it logic, or even magic, if you want. That does not make any difference. If the results of ontology matches with reality, then the definied logic is truth, otherwise not.
No, FC. There a lot of difference between these two assertions as it is not merely a play of language, at least according to the N.
N’s will to power is pure mathematics. He says that the every entity wills to power and that causes the struggle between those, and thus, the ambient creates a very few winners and more losers. So, losers (slaves) cannot will on their own but abide by the ambient (morality). On the other hand, Winners (masters) need not to abide by the ambient (morals) because now they are in the capacity to influence in ambient.
FC, he committed a serious mistake by assuming that will is only meant for power. Will is colourless and odourless. It is nothing but merely a simple desire or wish, which can be attracted to anything. It is what that wants things to happen and thus, creates TSM and that includes mind, which again consisted of many different parts, which again manifest all kinds of thoughts continueously and will use to stick anyone of them at any given moment.
Though, it is a different issue and we can take up that if you wish.
James,I understand and accept your definitions within RM.
That is precisely the difference between your perception and mine.
You are taking PTA or the ability of affect or power to will as the base ingredient.
But, you are forgetting that, if there is power to will, then there must be something, which possesses this power!
So, what is that? And, why you are not taking that into consideration, along with affectance?
You consider that the concept of cause and effect is true by your declared definition-
Then why are you taking only affect (affectance) into consideration but not its cause?
Is it not a simple logic?
James, this cause is precisely what is eternal consciousness and its affect is will, which tends to create the Affectance of RM.
That is why i am saying that RM starts from stage-2 instead of 1.
I do not have even the 1/100 of your computer skills, but if you can anyhow add these small different sized dots of consciousness in your software, and empower those with will ( to decide their affectance on their own, according to their size), the result of the RM would became slightly different than now.
James, if it is possible to implement, then i am sure that you would see Jack forming different (spiritual and human) realms of consciousness and RM also would run from top to bottom.
But, i simply do not know how it could be done and even possible or not.
James, you have put me into uncomfortable zone here, not because that i cannot defend myself or i have nothing to say, but, for some reasons, i do not like to discuss it openly in detail, though i have given you some hint of that during our prior discussions. I can put a lot and even more profound of those forth but that is useless as i cannot do anything to prove that here on the net. That is why i hesitate doing so. But, this does not mean that i beating the air.
James, once again, with due respect, I may sound ostentatious but, of course, i have every right to claim that that i have some logic-less evidences. But, it is not the case that i have those in my pocket as to put those on the table, if anyone asks for. But, i am aware of or rather know how those can be gathered, physically and scientifically too.
And, i did not come to know about those last night, but since last 20 years or so. Furthermore, it were only these evidences/incidents, which pushed me for further knowledge and investigation. But, the problem with me is that i must have some completely free time, may be an year or so, during which, i do not have to earn the bread and butter for my family, and some scientific means like an optometrist and a neutoscientist with all their instruments.
And, it could be done without any doubt.
Furthermore, even more surprising fact is that, it is not me alone who has evidence, but, all of us have the same. The only difference is that i know about that while others not.
But, i have not pushed it very hard for some reasons. One is that i do not feel myself prepare enough yet in many aspects. Secondly, as a firm believer in destiny, i know that the fruit would change its color, odour and taste automatically, when it would become ripe enough to pluck and pick.
So, i am waiting of that moment to come as destiny has provided me enough patience to wait for that. Let me also tell you that i am in the process of writing a book also about my experiences and cogitations, which is done by more than half. And, that is ultimate aim of my life, along with my duty towards my family.
But, of late, a very earnest desire has been manifested within me, that is to meet you in person. I would do it for sure, by coming to your place, if deatiny and you allowed me to do so.
with love,
sanjay
Not to me. It’s been the main thing that bothered me. It is not hard to understand causality itself, be it as force/form or WtP or PtA.
There’s a step in the direction I’ve headed, but I do not accept this restriction. It’s not suited to my mind or to my experience.
Rather, the choice for the term value is justified by the fact that it applies in all situations.
The question is what we intend to accomplish.
Viewed in this way, these ideas have affect but are not affected.
But ideas do not exist separately from the affect that they represent.
They are patterns in which affectance may reveal itself and know itself.
We are forms chosen by our reflection in our like-ness-bearers, our ‘kin of form’. We have evolved, nature has evolved by reflecting on its neighbors as on itself.
I am interested in working out the implications of the neoplatonic angle to RM.
I do not see a duality here, as the world of forms exists within the human mind. It is shaped by the capacity of the human mind, which in turn is shaped by deeper capacities and patterns of exchanging and discharging, and ultimately nothing can be said of forms outside of the origin of the mind.
An equal sided triangle is in a sense a symbol of the human self-valuing. As is a circle, an equal sided square, etcetera - they represent what, to us, appears most logical and perfect - it is what we can value in terms of our most universal, un-particular, ‘eternal’ standards. But precisely because of this, is perfectly particular to us.
We can’t escape this limit, this symmetry of the mind and what it perceives.
All that can be done to increase our scope of vision is to perceive this symmetry itself as self-valuing.
All that is not included in the symmetry is simply not registered, does not affect.
But it may exist to another realm, in which we do not affect.
Socrates said " I know that I know nothing " .
His statement is a contradiction and falsely humble. His point may have been " I know that I know only one thing " - meaning: I know the limits to what I can know.
Yes, and man has grown out of “the word”, or really “the logoic vision”. But then again, even DNA works as a system of representation - the envisioning quality is inherent to self-replication. Perhaps every species that reproduces itself can be said to harbor an idea, thus “have a mind”.
But of course. It has value to me - it can affect me. It is not necessarily affectance if I (or something remotely akin to me) am not there. There is always a reciprocity - Potential to Affect requires also Potential to Be Affected.
FC, I think in order to fully understand the foundation of RM:AO, one must examine reality on the most fundamental level of existence, “the vacuum”.
In VO, within a volume of space wherein there are no particles of any kind, no atoms, no DNA, no people with minds to think or evaluate, what is in that volume?
From there we can get into how it is that to affect also means to be affected and how that relates to the final conclusion that all things must be affecting all other things (through time) within the same realm of existence.
RM states correctly that such a state is impossible. We can not examine it, only its contradiction.
It does not exist.
Yes, within the same realm that is clearly necessary. I don’t know how you can think that I don’t understand that.
It’s only not at all said that there is ultimately only one realm.
That only follows from the generalizing definition of existence as PtA without the necessary conditioning statement that PtA still needs to be qualified.
PtA can only exist as entities, by logic of what “resistance” means. PtA is resistance.
VO actually explains what resistance is, how it works. RM only assumes that it’s the ultimate thing we can know.
Forgive me, I do not know what TSM stands for.
RM and VO are perfectly compatible, but VO explains (to me, my type of mind, the philosophical as opposed to the scientific one) how RM can work. For James, VO is not necessary as he accepts the RM definition of existence (affectance) as self-evident.
At later stages of RM, RM becomes very alike to VO.
Yes, after reading your posts, I figured that you would agree.
James has yet to explain why all PtA shares the quality of affecting all PtA. I don’t think he can do it, because I don’t think it an be true. Rather, I think that it would be extremely unlikely to be true - an infinitesimal chance, to be exact.
What is missing in RM is an extra dimension of infinity. This gets technical.
Next to infinite points of PtA, there need to be infinite types of PtA. Building Jack just to account for the mathematics of cardinalities as James saw necessary must have been a Herculean task, but to build a Jack for this would be impossible.
Of course. VO never fails to match with reality.
I wonder if you’ve understood it. Certainly you appear capable of it, given your understanding of the necessity of shared quality in cases of affectance.
Value Ontology is perhaps a misleading name. It’s really a Logic from which an ontology follows.
That is not a bad interpretation, but you seem to forget that according to N all is will to power, also the compulsion that drives the slave to shed his burdens, and to dissolve into morality.
N specifies that WtP is the feeling of power, the overcoming of resistance.
The slave is equally composed of WtP as the master, just not as fortunately.
This is basically true, and that is how Nietzsche is in fact known to the multitudes.
Indeed n one-morality-for-all is slave-morality. But master-morality need not necessarily be “inner law” - it can also be code of honor.
This inner law is the modern interpretation of Nietzsche, the classical type of interpretation is quite a bit harsher and more difficult to accept.
Though I see your point, you’re misinterpreting. The terms “desire” and “wish” are meaningless without the object of that desire. Nietzsche generalized this object into “the feeling of overcoming resistance”, which is how he understood “power”.
So you are declaring that in VO, every point in the physical universe has a particle in it???
I didn’t say, “nothingness”. I said “a vacuum” (merely void of particles).
…and you can take it to the bank that absolutely nothing is missing in RM:AO. If you think there is, you are missing something that is already in RM:AO.
James and FC,
At the end of the day, there is only one thing that exists, and that is consciousness. You may call it conceptual, because it is unchangeable itself, but can cause change or will.
Though, i do not think that it is conceptual, but a reality, and, the only reality. Thus, it must have a physical form for sure.
James, i would like to differ here about your interpretation of Socrates. He is the only philosopher so far in the west, whose perception is inclined towards East.
Furthermore, the Eastern philosophy about reality and illusion is far more logical than it appears. People just fail to understand what it is proposing.
That i agree with and i said the same to FC too.
Agree with that.
PTA is not the entity itself, rather it causes entities. But, technically, yes.
That is true.
TSM stands for Time, Space and Mind, That is will in totality and precisely the Ambient of RM.
He needs not to explain it because it is his definition.
FC, i do not see this argument much worth.
Jack may not able to represent the exact reality, yet can present it at conceptual (prototype) basic. And, that is enough.
.
FC, i do not know what you think about me, but, sometimes people confuse me with a hardcore religious person, though i am not. And yes, i have understanding capabilities, though i am not that much learned in the context of traditional philosophy.
I am out and out Empiricist and Idealist, nothing else. I believe only what i am able to experience in person. Reasoning comes second to me. I do not either support or refute anything, unless and until, it confirms observation, especially in metaphysics.
Ideally, logic should be based upon evidence and it should not be other way around. But, the problem with philosophy is that it does not have means to do that in metaphysical issues. And, that is precisely the point where east part ways from the west. That is why i am interested in RM because it deals with reality to some extent, not mere concepts.
That classical interpretation is real if we talk about N. If you just want to take an idea from him and built upon it, then it is a different issue. And, there is nothing wrong in it either but let us not put this burden on N, otherwise he would feel uncomfortable in his coffin.
No FC, Desire, Wish or Will are not meaningless at all. Their existence does not entail the object or subject. Once again, this is also one of those issues, which most westerners find difficult to digest that how can there be will without any aim. And, that is precisely the reason why the Buddhist Detachment confuses its western intellectuals.
In technical terms and within the realm of metaphysics, will serves the purpose of gravitation for the thoughts, in the same way, as it ( gravitation) does for the physical objects in the physical realm. Without will, thoughts would be scattered and not stick to the mind.
Are gravitation and the objects the same or different?
Look at what James says-
In the context of this and your objection of will not being colourless, i would like to propose the ontology of the existence as below-
There was neither Nothingness nor Vacuum at the initial stage but there was a form of existence, and we may call it Eternal Consciousness. At this stage, it is pure because it has no will, though, it has the capacity to will at will. It other words, we can say that this is the stage of Pure Un-entropy.
You may call it my initial premise or assumption or even declared definition. That does not make any difference to me.
So this EC ( eternal consciousness) remained there for eternity because time has not manifested yet. But, somehow, a will caused in it at any point. Once manifested, it cannot be stopped and tends to magnify, and thus spread to the entire EC. Entropy caused in the un-entropy.
But, this will cannot remain idle even for a moment, because its source is eternal, hence it is also eternal. So, it wants to make things happen, that are events. But, for an event, it is necessary to have both of space and time and imagination, that is TSM. And, as will had nothing else to do, so, its tiny bits started affecting each other by overlapping and that is what the Affectance of RM is.
But, an important point to notice here is that all this affectance is mechanical, because it has been separated from the consciousness and spread in the ambient. It is to say that this is mere affectance, not will. Because, will cannot be separated from consciousness.
After that, some different sized tiny particles of EC started spreading in the ambient, either because of negative particle formation as RM suggests or because of one time Metaphysical Big-Bang.
Then, TSM wraps and concentrated around EC particles and created Live-entities and when TSM concentrated only within itself, it creates Non-live entities.
So, technically, we are living in the mind of the EC, that that is the reason why this existence is called an illusion by some religious scholars. And, they are not wrong either. But, it is also a reality as far as we are in it.
James and FC, there is lot of speculation in this. But, there is one thing for sure that consciousness in the only base ingredient of the existence, not affectance.
with love,
sanjay
Sanjay, please define what you mean when you say “consciousness”.
…else what you are saying makes no sense in common English.
…and answer my last question too…
The meaning of the word consciousness is exactly that same what it means literally-
[b]A state of being alive and conscious.
An entity who is aware of its existence and attributes and also has both of capacity and will to use it according to its will[/b].
But remember, the Affectance of RM is niether live nor conscious but merely mechanical, because it cannot alter its course, if it wants. But, will can alter its course, if it wants.
And, that is precisely the difference between a human and a robot.
[u]Thus, being an unconscious entity, affectance cannot manifest consciousness.
A dead entity cannot produce life.
Any software, no matter how complicated or advanced it may be, cannot develop Artificial Intelligence or Congnitive abilities. Because, at the end of the day, it is still made nothing more than 0 and 1.[/u]
James, i think that i have answered this already. What exactly do you want to know?
Of course, i have logic-less evidence but unfortunately that is available for me in person only, not for others. Though, i can proof it to others scientifically that me and most other humans have something like that but that requires some time and means too. I would do it for sure one day, when destiny would allow me to do that. And, i am waiting for that moment, both eagerly and patiently too.
James, i am very well aware of the fact that it is very grand claim on my part. And, believe me, i have tried it see all this objectively, as a third person, hundreds of times in the last 20 years, but, the answer i got every time is the same that i have every right to believe and claim so. Thus, i cannot help it.
Furthermore, i have been told you some of them already in the other thread. You may believe me or not. It is up to you and i would not mind even if you call those my fantasy or illusions. because, from your POV or perspective, you have every right to say so, because, it is not proved to you yet. But, in the same way, from my perspective, i cannot deny those merely on the ground that those do not fit in any ontology, because, i know that those are for real.
If this answer does not satisfy you or i misread you in any way, then please elaborate what else you want to clarify or expect from me. I would do that without any hesitation. Because, even having disagreement on some issues, i have a deep respect and regard for your knowledge and work.
with love,
sanjay
Sanjay, I wasn’t referring to any particular logic-less evidence. I just wanted you to present us with an example of what you would call logic-less evidence.
But let me also ask you the same question as of FC. What do you believe would be within a small volume of space that had absolutely no particles in it? Consciousness?
And btw, realize that a “Potential” is merely a “Situation”, not an entity. Every point has a potential only because of the logic of its situation relative to surrounding points. A glass sitting on the edge of a table has a potential to fall. That potential is not an entity, but a measure of its ability to perform some act.
What I have been saying is that every point in space has the potential to affect, PtA, each point surrounding it because of, and only because of, the logic of the situation. It is the LOGIC of the Situation that Causes all things to change (the physical universe).
The Logic of your Situation is your “God”. There is absolutely nothing that you can ever do that isn’t permitted by the logic of your situation. That is the very definition of a “god”, one that dictates what can or cannot happen. And “God” meaning, one that dictates ALL that can or cannot happen, the “god above all gods”.
Perhaps there is a small mundane boulder in front of you. To you, it seems to have no value, as in it seems “worthless”. But merely because it is in front of you (the logistics), it has the “potential to affect” you. It can cause you to deviate from your path, or hurt your foot if you don’t step around it, or perhaps block something else from rolling toward you. It adds to the weight of the Earth and the scenery. It affects what you perceive as hope or threat, being a safe thing or a threatening thing or perhaps an opportunity for its uses. It occupies space that would have to be occupied by something else that isn’t there because the boulder is there instead. It blocks your view from whatever is behind it. It offers complexity for your mind to deal with as it assesses your situation. It has a great deal of “potential to affect” merely because it exists within your surroundings, your “ambient”.
OK. As you wish.
But, before saying anything, i must clear what i meant by Logic-less evidence.
Logic-less evidence does not mean that there is no logic behind that evidence. But, refers that we do not know the explanation of that yet.
Here we are-
James, if we carefully go through this, then these evidences/experiences would lead us to some conclusions-
We are not merely mind and body, but there is something else also resides within us. And, that is neither imagination nor illusion but as physical as we are. Otherwise, how can seeing a vision of spoon with eatables can fill the stomach?
Dreams are not unreal or mere imagination and they can affect both our mind and body. It also means that what we use to see in the dream, happens in reality somewhere for sure, otherwise, how can it affect our body?
[u]If we consider these true, then why can Jesus not cure the ill people magically?
And, why Virgin Mary cannot get conceived by the An Angel or Holy Spirit in the dream?
And James, why should we consider these as mere concepts, but not real events[/u]?
With love,
sanjay
I believe that you cannot observe anything at all without first presuming logic. I believe that you cannot even think without first presuming logic. I believe that you cannot see or hear without first presuming logic. I believe that nothing at all can exist without the logic that it is.
A “logic-less” observation is merely the illogic of the observer, not the illogic of the observed.
And you still haven’t said what you believe in within a small volume of particle-less space.
James, that is different issue as you have taken a very broad interretation of logic. And, that is including all, even events and senses. I think that is too much asking from logic as it goes down to the very roots of comprehention.
James, events are not logic, but, they are understood by logic. And, let us keep the sensing ability out of the spread of the logic too.
And if we follow this trial up to the end, then a question arises.
What was there in the first place?
Event or Explanation?
Entity or Rules?
And i would certainly go for the entity.
That is far more reasonable and acceptable too. I also said the same in my last post.
James, i see or whatever more or less undestand it, first of all, there cannot be a particle-less splace or something like that that indicates towads the concept of nothingness. Something must be there in order to manifest anything else.
To be honest, i am not yet able to visualize the reality of Ground Zero. And, have not found anything such yet, which explains that perfectly. Or, it is also possible that there was no such situation, but, scriptures say so. So, i am not sure either way.
I can take from the stage-1, from where the scriptures say - Let there be light.
But James, this is not my assumption, because, one tiny byte of that light resides in each and every Live entity. Our whole existence is built around it by what RM calls affetence or TSM. This light has slight hint of blueness and very much looks like a small moving zigzag worm of around 1 centimeter or so. I know it (though, it is again a grand assertion from my part).
This is the anatomy of the human consciousness.
When a layer of affectance wraps around it, it becoms soul or a divine entity. And, in the same way, when one more layer of affectance wraps around it, it becomes human. Thus, humans are the most complext entities in the cosmos, hence, have to be at the end of the chain, not in somewhere between.
Here i differ with RM because Divine realm is as Live and changeable as human one. If anything that is unchangeable in the whole of the cosmos, is consciousness.
This light is not abide by the rules of physics because it is not a physical matter, though is still a form of matter, but has its own will. And this is precisely what was there at the stage-1, as a big clump. But, it disintegrated and spread all over in the ambient along with that affectance, which had been already caused by it. And, started interaction with it to manifest Live entities.
Now, this is from where RM steps in and explains further development, though, not completely, but, very near to perfection.
With love,
sanjay
I believe you, like so very many these days, have it all backward.
Logic is exactly at the root of ALL comprehension. There could be no comprehension at all without the underlying logic involved, else obviously it would be incomprehensible.
They ARE the logic that is to be understood through observing them and trying to form a mental logic that fits the physical logic, “ontology”.
The whole point to a magic trick is to fool the subconscious logic of the senses such that your eyes deceive you. You don’t see what your eyes tell you that you are seeing because their logic, the logic of your sensing mechanism was fooled into presenting you with a false conclusion which your conscious mind had to accept as what was really seen, yet it wasn’t what was “really” seen.
Your senses must use logic to an extreme degree, else you could never sense anything and have no more intelligence than a rock. Your eyes receive nothing but a stream of photons and from that, the nervous system attempts to deduce the relative locations of objects that are distant from you. If a photon hit one nerve and not another, it is deduced (the logic) that the light came from a different area, perhaps to the left. If light comes to the nerves that are positioned to the right, the nervous system deduces that the light came from the right. The nervous system does nothing but make deductions based on location, correlated timing, and degree of contact. You never, ever directly sense anything. You ALWAYS deduce what it was that you saw.
Logic is founded from “A=A” or “whatever it is, is whatever it is”.
The universe is already in that state. Our job is to discover “whatever it is” through using that same logic plus our observations. But the logic was already there. We merely attempt to discover and reveal it. If you do not accept that, then you are saying that whatever is there, is NOT whatever is there. Is there anywhere in the universe where whatever is there, is not whatever is there?
Don’t confuse an explanation for the logic that is the actual event or entity. An explanation is an attempt to find the logic that describes the entity or event. There is the actual logic of the event and there is what people guess that logic to be.
If you add 1 cup of water to two cups of water in a bowl, the adding logic has already taken place. When you try to understand it or explain it, you might might a mistake. Your reasoning might end up with the bowl having 4 cups of water instead of the actual three. But just because someone multiplies 2 numbers and gets the wrong answer, that doesn’t mean that multiplication is faulty. And just because you deduced something incorrectly, it doesn’t mean that logic is faulty or not present.
Logic can only deduce logic. Before you even begin to deduce what it is that you observe, the logic must already be within it, else what would you be deducing and how could you possibly deduce what you have observed? You wouldn’t even be able to name it, much less explain it.
If whatever is there, isn’t whatever is there, then no logic can deduce anything about it and you could never see it. And if whatever is there, is whatever is there, then the LOGIC is already there merely awaiting to be “seen” or “deduced”.
You cannot see a square if your mind does not know how to deduce its shape from the light that enters the eye.
I have merely said that there are no “particles” in the volume. I didn’t say there could be no light, for example. Wouldn’t there be EM waves? Gravity waves? All existence doesn’t have to be particles.
So according to YOUR understanding or ontology, what would be “every possible thing” within a small volume assuming that absolutely no “particles” (specifically) were not in that volume? Or what kind of existence is there that can be within a small volume that is NOT made of particles?