“Interactive quality”??
What is that supposed to mean?
If you mean consistency in behavior, you are right. But being consistent is not being homogeneous. To be homogeneous, every affect must affect every other affect the exact, perfectly 100%, same amount. That is impossible.
Again, homogeneity has nothing at all to do with RM:AO other than it being totally disavowed. And anything that is outside the definition of existence is considered non-existent. What alternative would you suggest?
White light is helpful, not black or colored.
Well, if you want to say, “affects upon different affects”, that’s okay with me. I don’t see the difference (pun forgiven).
In RM:AO theory, every affect is an affect upon another affect, one affect changing another. And as it turns out, that is all that the entirely of reality is, nothing else at all. Affectance, the ocean of subtle influences, is the entire universe and everything within it. What you now call “matter” is merely high concentrations of affectance. And what you call “empty space” is extremely low concentration of affectance. It is all quite provable and science actually has no choice but to agree (as much as they would hate to).
You skipped the part about them being perhaps infinitely far apart. That might cause a problem for your theory. You believe infinities can converge and I don’t. So we’re dealing with some inexplicable discrete affectance here. Just like we know it can’t be non-affectance, we know it cannot be infinitely discrete. But for affectance to differentiate itself, it may need to actually be infinite to pull itself away from other affectance, which causes a paradox.
Yes and what is your point. If you meant valid when you said true, (it’s by the way odd that we should use terminology of sailors and carpenters instead of the applicable technical term) the same objection still stands, namely that you only have a self-contained system that may be logically sound, but that doesn’t tell us anything about the world, empty… Shifting arround the designations you give to concepts doesn’t change that.
It’s the only way we have of getting information about the world we live in…
You are doing away with observations in you OP… you even call it rational metaphysics. Where do observations come in?
And concepts that are being researched are defined all the time in science, and philosophy and a number of other disciplines…
Well, I don’t always choose my words perfectly, but the one I chose can’t be said to be wrong. Sorry for any misleading.
But here again, you presume even though it has been explained. You presume that I propose to make a valid ontological construction and then to just leave it there. I don’t do that. I have told you that you first make a valid (aka “true”) ontological construct but then you observationally verify it (aka “scientific method”) and then even beyond that, you keep it open for detailed logical debate (“resolution debating”).
So please don’t presume that I am talking about merely inventing a good sounding story and leaving it there.
It is the only way of getting the current exact situation. It is not the only way you have of learning of the universe or of reality. Merely the fact that you stated what is not possible means that you used thought, not senses. You certainly never sensed the fact that thinking never accomplished the acquisition of information. You thought it (because it was given to you to think).
???
Are you not reading? Or do you have some personal definitions for the words that you are reading?
“Scientific Methodology” means observing and measuring, preferably in a falsifiable way.
Build the ontology
Scientifically verify it
Keep it open for logical argumentation … forever.
That used to be a science requirement, but not any more. Today they presume vague definitions even in the hard sciences and change them from time to time without letting you know. In physics, the word “mass” might mean quite a variety of things. It was only through confusion and arguments that they began distinguishing different kinds of “mass” and in ways that don’t exactly make sense (weight, inertia, rest, frequency, energy,…). But it is not allowed to correct them, else it implies that they were not supreme.
Thinking alone doesn’t yield new information, its just repackaging in new conceptions, tautologies ultimately. Information → data → senses…
You are asking me if i have personal definitions while you use the word ‘true’ for the concept ‘valid’? What does meta-physics meant to you?
Put the words metaphysics and rational together in a context of philosophy and i think i’m perfectly justified in thinking that what you are saying fits in the wider historical philosophical debate of empiricism vs rationalism.
But it’s not only the fact that you name it rational metaphysics, it’s also the method you are using that reminds me of for instance the rationalist god-proofs. Starting from the most abstract definition, deducing a whole bunch of stuff from the definition only (as if something new is revelealed that way) and then stipulating more things by definition…
You make some vague references to science, but it’s entirely unclear to me how affectance and the things you say about is, has been verified by data.
And even if i would grant you that it is all scientifically verified, the order of your method still seems backwards to me. We start with things we observe, and then name and define them… I just don’t see how you can just start with definitions out of thin air.
I have no real way of verifying this claim, so i’ll leave it as it is…
There is a high probability that the well defined theory of a non-corrupted human is more true than the theory of a corrupted human who is called “scientist” and depends on the money of other corrupted humans.
How would you observationally answer the question, “What does it mean to exist?” Science cannot answer that question. It is entirely a definitional metaphysics question. No one can see if the answer is true. One has to deduce and understand the answer.
That is because it is for thinking people.
Of course You don’t see it. But that is what makes your mind someone else’s play-toy. You watch the magic show and then deduce that the observed magical powers come from genetic mutations.
And btw;
Rational means “logical steps toward a chosen goal”.
Metaphysics means “beyond-physicality”, “the principles that physicality obeys”.
RM is different than other types of metaphysics because it is entirely logic and rationality based rather than speculative and superstitious based (with or without scientific verification). Both relativity and quantum physics are metaphysics ontologies. But they are not entirely rational. Quantum physics is really close to being entirely superstition. And you can scientifically verify a superstition.
Science alone can never tell if anything is true, only that it hasn’t been proven false … yet.
To exist means that something can be observed, that it is physical. That’s a definition we came up with because we observed things in the first place. It doesn’t make sense to speak about what “to exist” means without experiences.
But since your argument basicly amounts to ‘I can do these things because i’m special’ and i’m obviously to dumb to understand, i don’t think there’s much reason to go on.
There is a rather large whole in your logic there. How do you know that you are experiencing everything that really exists? There could be a great, great many things that exist yet you/“we” don’t have the capacity to experience them.
Even granting the use of machines, how do you know that the machines are experiencing all of the kinds of things that exist? Science can only tell you what the machines tell them.
And further, how do you know that you are not experiencing something that really does not exist?
And your argument is basically that thinking has never served you, only observations (and believing what “they” tell you). Okay, if thinking doesn’t serve you and you have to just believe what you are told, then RM is not for you. But everyone isn’t that way. Not everyone is religious.
And since thinking doesn’t serve you, what good are your arguments concerning … well, anything?
Re: James
I wish to raise two points.
One thing I am driving at is that there are different kinds of difference - absence of homogeneity is not a sufficient definition of the type of difference/ differing we are dealing with; how can things be both different from each other and yet work on the same terms? How can two billiard balls both transmit their forces onto each other and yet retain structural integrity? Because they do two things at once, in the final analysis; ‘self-value and value in terms of self-valuing’. They hold themselves together by absorbing the others self-valuing to the nature and degree that they share terms in that moment.
Secondly; You once said that every point of affectance affects every other point, of course to lesser degrees the farther down any dimensions the relative distance may be. This is consistent with a Newtonean view as well as with a certain Nietzschean view to which Magnus Anderson is a proponent; the idea that true isolation can not exist. But I am not certain that you still uphold this view. It is correct to say that everything meaningful is affectance, but it does not follow that affectance can be quantified homogenously, as you would when you work with those infinitesimals in Jack, the project that you brought up as a demonstration of RM’s success in reproducing reality.
Exactly a qualification of differing values when reified or not integrated within self and other valuing is not absolute. there are degrees of assimilation, and when the probability of functional derivative (of self value) becomes manifest in terms of an understanding of perception of them, then they are understood in terms of self rather then assimilated value. It only means that a closer integration has not occurred within the context. it’s affectance has not been effective.
The ontological element we have is “affect” and locations. Each location has an affect of a “different” value (PtA - potential to affect). Or you can say that there is a different affect of a different amount in every location. All you have to work with is the degree of affect and locations. At that base level, nothing else exists at all to “work with”. As it turns out, that was all that was needed.
They are only different by their location and degree/amount of PtA. They work “on the same terms” because they are the exact same kind of thing.
That is a different issue. But you have objects both self-valuing and also sharing/transferring their self-value - “two things”. I have affects both giving and receiving PtA = “two things”.
I’m not sure what you mean by “quantified homogenously”. I agree that true total isolation to an infinite degree is not possible, although isolation to any particular, finite, practical degree can be done. And Jack had nothing homogeneous about any of it. The 200,000 afflates were all randomly valued and positioned. No two of them were alike.
You are really confused about all of this eh, that would explain why you got stuff backwards with you methodology and the weird questions you keep asking.
There is no “really existing” or “really not existing”… to know if something exist you go verify if that something meets the criteria of the definition. In this case, if it can’t be observed in no way, it doesn’t exist, because that’s what the definition of ‘to exist’ is. That is all there is to it. There is no hole in my logic, because i’m not making any claims about ontology, metaphysics, really real reality or other things in themselves… i’m just splitting experience up into concepts that can be of use in some way. Do you understand this?
Sigh… no that is not my argument. My argument was that without experience no information is added. Thinking is plenty usefull for structuring, conceptualising, etc… of information, but it needs something to work on.
And yet ontology is prior in more sense than simply being a historical precedent. Much theory has evolved out of basic philosophical tenets with proximate closeness to logical certainty. That is the hypothetical of paradigms assumtions, and it validation has been more affirming logical hypothesis then not.
an interesting example is of the debunking of the existence of ether, yet new realizations have shed new light on this, and other early, intuitive ideas.
Correct, but this does not take away that in order for there to be affectance, there must be both affected and affecter; i.e. 2 self-valuings.
Affectance is always sufficient to itself. Just not necessarily to the terms of all self-valuings.
I am talking in purely psychological terms of affect and affect, The physics and the metaphysics may singularly argued in terms of degrees of probability of sufficient self VO. When realized, it is an assumed certainty, albeit not truly definitive within its own self understanding. When merely at the level of a singular assumtion, it is a believe it when I see it attitude. This weights in Kant’s argument, and the stage of trying to affirm both, albeit synthetically, shows the attempt,of the logical assumtion’s need to -not to reject the primal law of identity, in favor of the new logic of exclusion,more difference.
Oh you are the one who has it backwards and you just proved it.
You have to see that “it” fits the definition. What is that definition?
You want to say that it fits the definition if you can see it.
But when did you see that definition? When did you see that the definition fits the criteria of existing? How do you know that seeing it fits the definition of existing?
You might want to consider that the quintessential property that must be present in order for an object to be observed is that the object must affect something. If it affects nothing, I say it doesn’t exist and you cannot see it. In some cases, I already know that you could never see certain things, without me having to look = knowledge without observation.
And you might also want to consider that they defined a Higg’s boson before they went looking for it. They didn’t see one laying around then say, “Oh, look. There’s a Higg’s boson. Let’s define what it is”.
That is very true. And my “Affectance” is very similar, but not quite identical, to their “Aether”. And my Affectance is unquestionably existent.
We make up definitions James, they are not written in the stars or the fabric of reality. So asking things like “how do you know that the definition fits the criteria of existing” is completely absurd, as if existing means anything on itself outside of it’s definition.
If you want to refine the definition because it doesn’t account for all what you want to fall under it, that’s fine… but don’t go on pretending you derived the defintion purely rationaly out of thin air.
Exactly my point. We invent the ontology, mostly merely from defined concepts that might or might not fit reality. Later, we make deductions based upon our chosen definitions and test our hypotheses against what “we should see” if our hypothesis (which came first) is matching reality. If it doesn’t match well enough, we explore other possible thoughts concerning conceptual entities. The electric field or gravitational forces, for example, were never seen. They were concepts that seemed to work out well when tested through hypothetical issues.
We first define what concepts are meaningful to us. THEN we observe to see if anything fits.
Animals do that by hard-wiring. Their brains, like yours, are pre-wired to identify specific types of patterns and movements. That pre-wiring is the physiological form of “pre-defining”. In thinking humans, cognition allows for even greater defining of concepts that the pre-wiring didn’t already cover, such as the statistical entities in quantum physics that aren’t physically real, merely mathematical entities, usually averages, virtual particles, or peak values and are never seen, yet still taught as real entities of “science”.
There is no pretending at all. I DID rationally derive the definition that I use “out of thin air”.
My thought was that I don’t care about anything that has no affect upon anything, so why should I say that it exists. That allowed me to restrict anything worth calling “existent” to whatever might have affect. Many people argue with me about that. It is strictly a rational choice because including things that I might already know don’t have any affect at all is irrational to my goal of understanding the construct of reality.
It is epistemology, the construct of knowledge. Combined with logic, knowledge can be derived.
For example, I know beyond any doubt that there can never be any portion of space that has no affectance (ultra-miniscule EMR pulses) within it. An absolute nothingness can never exist, never has, never will. I certainly didn’t observe that. But it is a logical impossibility, much like a square-circle oxymoron, a definitional contradiction. Thus I know merely through careful thinking that nothingness cannot ever be the state of the universe nor of any portion within.
I gained that knowledge and even the certainty of it purely through definitions and logic … no science involved at all and anyone could have done the same 10,000 years ago (and perhaps did).
