Universe and Time

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
421

It isn’t my business to correct every word that has been formed and ambiguously conflated. “Spirit” is not a word that RM:AO uses (much like force and mass). I can explain some of the confusion that has come about concerning many words, but they are not “my” words.

RM:AO is about actual existence, actual affects. Some of the common words that people have created and use fit well. Some do not fit very well. Some words fit only if you use them in one of their multiple meanings. I don’t really care. How other people choose to use and misuse their words is their business.

I can tell from how people use their word “spirit”, that they are often talking about one of two things and seldom distinguish which one they are talking about. Due to that, there is a lot of confusion amongst the people. As I explained before, the word “spirit” has two common usages. One is referring to concepts or ideas. The other is referring to actual physical flow, “energy”. And sometimes they are referring to the concept of a particular flowing.

In RM:AO, I chose, for convenience, to merely allow for a “conceptual realm of existence” and a “physical realm of existence”. The conceptual realm was for the Platonic entities - concepts, independent of physical existence. Plato and others declared in their ontology, that such entities have “always existed”. I don’t really care if you choose to say that they have “always existed” or not. If a concept is not being physically represented, it is having no affect. It can be thought of as a “potential existence void of opportunity”.

The conceptual realm is actually the special case of the physical realm wherein the essence of something (its concept) has been reduced to zero physical presence, yet the concept still “exists”. The conceptual realm is the extreme pole of reduced physicality.

If you had 5 apples in a basket and took one out at a time, you would be reducing the physical presence of the concept called “apple”. When you got down to zero apples, you no longer have any physical presence, but you still have the concept. The concept is still in your mind and has a physical presence there as the concept alone, without actual physical form, merely definition (understanding of the description).

But even without any minds at all, Platonic ontology declares that the concept still “exists”. RM:AO declares that “it only exists within the conceptual realm”, meaning that it has no physical affect although has conceptual affect (the concept of a straight line, for example, affects the concept of a square and triangle).

But the truth is, I don’t really care whether it is said to “exist” or not. Rational metaphysics is called “rational” because it is for addressing achievable goals. Whether something exists yet has no affect at all, is not something RM:AO cares about. A concept within a mind affects that mind and that mind affects that body, thus has physical existence. The possibility of the future existence of a concept is itself a physical existence if it is thought about. A possible existence is, in effect, a “negative presence” or a “hole to be filled”. The “hole” exists in the same way that an electron exists. An electron is a bundle of positive absence, or “reduced existence” from the ambient.

Well, if you want to just use a single definition that is most compatible with me, “spirit” refers to physical motion or behavior and “concept” refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume.

422

It seems to be a translation problem. “Spirit” as the common translated German word “Geist” also “refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume”. “Concept” as the common translated German word “Begriff” („Konzept“, „Idee“) also “refers to those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume”. So if I translate those two words - “spirit” and “concept” -, I always get “those Platonic forms or essences that lack any physical volume”.

Howsoever, do you agree with me that there are material and non-material forms of existence?

423

Oh, I see. :laughing:
Like I said, the word “spirit” has become ambiguous, so let’s just leave that word out and use either “energy” for the essence of any movement and “behavior” for any particular form or type of movement.

I can agree to that. RM:AO allows for a “physical realm of existence” (or “material”) and also a “conceptual realm of existence”. And understand that as the material existence reduces to zero, it approaches the conceptual realm. They share a border at “zero physical existence”.

424

Ambiguous. Oh, I see. :laughing:

And there are merely this two realms, because accordong to RM:AO “absolutely zero” does not exist, so a zero realm does also not exist.

425

Yes, that border of “absolute zero” can never be breached. It is non-existence. Concepts have nothing to do with time or distance. For a concept to become a physical reality, it doesn’t “cross the border”, but rather a physical potential (“situation”) must independently arise such as to form the concept within the physical realm. At that point the concept is a “physical state”.

Principles (“laws”) have that same issue because a principle is merely a special case of a concept. For a principle to physically exist, a situation must arise that constitutes a physical state to represent the principle otherwise the principle has no physical representation and remains independent of time and distance. A “political state” is an example.

426

So the whole spiritual part of life - for eaxmple principles, “laws”, rules, ideas, and all the other special cases of a concept - would have to remain in the spiritual / conceptual / energetic realm of existence and can’t reach the other realm, the physical / material realm, if a physical potential (as the situation) hadn’t occured.

427

Well, there you go using the “s” word again after we agreed not to.
The conceptual realm and energy don’t mix. Energy is of the physical realm.

But yes, the potential must arise for a conceptual entity to appear in the physical world. The devil cannot enter your home if you don’t leave the door open to him. A three headed elephant cannot be born into the world if the DNA is not altered into something that would produce a three headed elephant.

428

Sorry, I worded that very poorly.
I meant to say, “All physical things have more than absolute zero effect upon physical things, but ONLY through time.”

429

Here you said that I should use the word “energy” instead of “spirit”:

Here you said “spirit” and “energy” don’t mix:

430

The conceptual realm has no movement or changing = concepts or ideas.
The physical realm is for all movement or changing = energy or behavior.

431

If the word “spirit” has really “become ambiguous”, then it should also not refer “to the physical realm”. In this case “ambiguous” means that the reference is not clear, thus there is no refernce to both the conceptual realm and the physical realm.

432

That is why I said, let’s just not use it. When a word has become ambiguous, using it merely leads to more confusion and chaos. Clarity is important.

433

I think the Greek word „nous“, the German words „Geist“, „Vernunft“, „Verstand“, „Intellekt“, „Idealität“, „Ideal(e)“, „Idee“, „Begriff“, „Vorstellung“, „Konzept“, „Plan“, and others describe very well what you mean by „conceptual realm“. Strangely but according to what you said, the English word „spirit“ doesn’t fit very well, although its German translation is usually „Geist“. Nevertheless, I should prefer to follow your advice and avoid as much as possible the word „spirit“ when it comes to the „conceptual realm“.

„Nous“: „Vernunft“, „Geist“, „Denkkraft“, „Einsicht“.
„Vernunft“: „reason“.
„Geist“: „spirit“, „mind“, „conscience“, „consciousness“, „awareness“, „esprit“, „genie“, „intelligence“, „intellect“, „apprehension“, „brain“, „sense“, „genius“.
„Denkkraft“: „think(ing) strength“.
„Einsicht“: „insight“ „inspection“, „intelligence“.
„Verstand“: „understanding“, „intelligence“, „intellect“, „brains“.
„Intellekt“: „intellect“.
„Idealität“: „ideality“.
„Ideal(e)“: „ideal(s)“.
„Idee“: „idea“.
„Begriff“: „concept“, „definition“, „term“, „idea“, „notion“, „conception“.
„Vorstellung“: „imagination“, „representaion“, „idea“, „conception“.
„Konzept“: „concept“, „conception“, „draft“, „draught“.
„Plan“: „plan“, „map“, „programme“, „project“, „schedule“, „scheme“.

434

Realize that all I am saying is that because the word “spirit” gets used to mean two different things without making it clear which the author intends, I would prefer to not use the word when talking about very exacting things such as RM:AO. The word can be misleading.

435

Something to think about concerning the concept of “force” as it is used in physics is that the concept is what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance” and didn’t agree with it. The Newtonian concept of forces, attraction and repulsion, was that two bodies with absolutely nothing between them, would attract or repel each other depending on their mass and/or charge potential. That actually requires “magic” because it is implying that each body is being affected by another far away without anything between or touching either body.

This is another example of empirical evidence being misleading. The empirical evidence is that the two bodies respond to each other and yet it can clearly be seen that absolutely nothing is between them. Of course the truth is that just because you can’t see something, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. That is why logic is required beyond the physical evidence. And that logic is called “metaphysics”.

And that is why I say that “forces” don’t actually exist. They are an aberrant effect of the gradient affectance field that is between the two bodies causing the bodies to behave with respect to the other. They bodies migrate with respect to their immediate surroundings. They don’t sense the presence of the distant body. If you modify that field, the bodies will respond accordingly regardless of any other body that might be around.

Both Newtonian physics and Einstein’s Relativity are merely illusions that provided for better predictions than what they had before. But a method for predicting is not a law of the universe, merely a short-cut tool with which to get a little closer to knowing what is going to happen even if you have no idea as to why.

RM:AO is all about “Why?” - the “Meta-physics”, the Logic.

436

Throughout his adult life Goethe, for example, fought Newton’s physics.

437

Ever notice how anyone who challenged the mainstream of his day, despite being right, ended up with a record of having mental problems? … just coincidence of course. Yet those who were actually wrong, are recorded as “geniuses” of their day.

438

Newton was a scientist and theologian while his German “Zeitgenosse” (“time accomplice”, coeval, contemporary) Leibniz was a scientist and philosopher; so theology and philosophy make the crucial difference. Newton had political power, Leibniz had no political power. Calculus was invented by Leibniz. Wether calculus was also, simultaneously and independently of Leibniz, invented by Newton is doubtable because of Newton’s political power.

What has been found and brought in a formula by Newton could also have been found and brought in a formula by another person. It was Newton’s political power that made him and his “laws” famous. If he hadn’t had this political power, he and his “laws” would probably not have become famous. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. So without any doubt, Newton was also a Faustian scientist but he gave a very special form to the Faustian science. And what I just said about Newton, applies similarly for Einstein. So Newton and Einstein are not the most typical Faustian scientists but nevertheless also Faustian scientists. Their relativity theories are not as absolute and dynamic as other Faustian theories but nevertheless also Faustian theories.

439

What “other Faustian theories”?

440

The other Faustian theories are all the other Occidental (Western) theories. They are so many that I didn’t want to list themin my last post. In this case, it doesn’t matter wether they are “right” (“true”) or “wrong” (“false”) because in this case it is crucial and essential wether they belong to the type, the form, the character of the Faustian culture, for example: dynamic, infinity, infiniteness, endlessness, everlastingness, boundlessness, illimitableness, force(s), dilatation, expansiveness, … and so on.