Universe and Time

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

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:27 pm

Arminius wrote:Why do you then calling the charges "positive" and "negative" instead of "greater charge" and "lesser charge"?

Because when I am explaining, I have to use the more common words and notions of the day. One can't learn to speak a language, especially on the internet, if the person explaining it doesn't ever use any words familiar to the one listening. Even if a unicorn doesn't exist, one has to used the concept in order to propose that it doesn't. Thus I say, "[what we call] a 'negative charged particle' is merely a concentration of lower affectance than the ambient". And that ALL of the things that we CALL "negative" are in reality merely lesser than more positive things, not an opposite of positive things except in reference to an average, chosen standard, or expectation. Reality itself has no chosen standard or expectation or even awareness of any average. Averages are human mental constructs, as are standards and expectations. Physical reality has no such things. And thus physical reality actually has no negative of anything.

It is similar to the notion of "force". Physical reality has no such thing as a force. A force is merely a perception of the mind, an assumption. The physical reality is actually merely migrating such as to change its locations around. Nothing is actually pulling or pushing, ever. But in order to explain that to those who believe in forces, I have to use the notion of "force", the pulling and pushing that doesn't actually exist.
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: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:24 am

James S Saint wrote:Because when I am explaining, I have to use the more common words and notions of the day. One can't learn to speak a language, especially on the internet, if the person explaining it doesn't ever use any words familiar to the one listening. Even if a unicorn doesn't exist, one has to used the concept in order to propose that it doesn't. Thus I say, "[what we call] a 'negative charged particle' is merely a concentration of lower affectance than the ambient". And that ALL of the things that we CALL "negative" are in reality merely lesser than more positive things, not an opposite of positive things except in reference to an average, chosen standard, or expectation. Reality itself has no chosen standard or expectation or even awareness of any average. Averages are human mental constructs, as are standards and expectations. Physical reality has no such things. And thus physical reality actually has no negative of anything.

It is similar to the notion of "force". Physical reality has no such thing as a force. A force is merely a perception of the mind, an assumption. The physical reality is actually merely migrating such as to change its locations around. Nothing is actually pulling or pushing, ever. But in order to explain that to those who believe in forces, I have to use the notion of "force", the pulling and pushing that doesn't actually exist.

AO accepts the mainstream definition of "charge", but does not accept the mainstream definition of "positive" and "negative". The mainstream definition of "wave" is accepted by AO, but partly not the mainstream definition of "particle".

What you call "affectance" is nearly that what the mainstream physicists call "attraction", and that is especially true for the electromagnetic "attraction".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 23, 2014 5:03 am

It isn't a matter of accepting their definitions for their words, but rather what their definitions mean.
Arminius wrote:AO accepts the mainstream definition of "charge", but does not accept the mainstream definition of "positive" and "negative".

What they mean by "charge" is electric-potential. "Potential" means exactly what it is. The "Potential-to-Affect", PtA, uses the word "potential" exactly as they do. They don't use "charge" to mean anything different than that. So I have no need for a change of definition because RM:AO has a "potential" and thus a "charge", although I only use the word "charge" when referring to commonly understood things like the charge of an electron.

And in the case of positive and negative, the only thing that I change is that such words can only reference an average, not an absolute. They actually already know that, but simply leave out the notion of it and thus inadvertently teach that "negative" is a separate thing from "positive" ("equal but opposite"), even though they well know that it is merely relative, until they came across subatomic particles. With subatomic particles, they didn't know of what a negative particle could be relatively less than. They couldn't grasp the idea that space isn't empty. So they settled with the idea that space is zero and protons and electrons float "above zero" as "equal but opposite things". I am merely pointing out that space is not "zero" and electrons are lower than space; lower "energy", "potential", "PtA", and/or "Affectance". And neither are negative things "equal", even though they have opposite direction of potential/charge relative to the ambient.

Today, they know that space is not as empty as they had thought, but the idea of an electron being a higher potential-energy thing still lingers. Ambient space is the "average" that an electron is lower than, and thus properly negative relative to that average.

Arminius wrote:The mainstream definition of "wave" is accepted by AO,

"Wave" merely refers to an abstract form and movement of something, like a rolling sphere, falling cube, or floating cloud.
Arminius wrote:but partly not the mainstream definition of "particle".

I explain of what a particle is made and thus reveal that it isn't quite what they teach, but the word "particle" is appropriate enough to keep.

Arminius wrote:What you call "affectance" is nearly that what the mainstream physicists call "attraction", and that is especially true for the electromagnetic "attraction".

??? Not even close. :(

Affectance comes much closer to being their "mass field" or "energy field". And there is no "attraction" in RM:AO, nor "repulsion". Things merely migrate toward or away from other things due to their constant reforming of themselves based upon the field strength immediately around them. They feel no pulling or pushing. They rebuild themselves a little closer or further away because the field was a little stronger closer or further away. In common physics, a particle is a "solid mass". In RM:AO a particle is a cluster of ultra-fine EMR noise busily buzzing about feeding off of the non-zero space all around 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

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sat Aug 23, 2014 4:46 pm

James S Saint wrote:It isn't a matter of accepting their definitions for their words, but rather what their definitions mean.

It is always the meaning because accept phonemes all linguistic forms (morphemes, lexemes/logemes [simiar to words], syntactemes, textemes, and even languages themselvses) have a meaning. So, the definitions of the physicists also mean what their definitions "say". If (for example) a definition "says" that "charge is electric potential", then it means that "charge is electric potential".

I guess, you mean a kind of extended meaning.

James S Saint wrote:What they mean by "charge" is electric-potential. "Potential" means exactly what it is. The "Potential-to-Affect", PtA, uses the word "potential" exactly as they do. They don't use "charge" to mean anything different than that. So I have no need for a change of definition because RM:AO has a "potential" and thus a "charge", although I only use the word "charge" when referring to commonly understood things like the charge of an electron.

Yes, as I said:


Have you not read it?

James S Saint wrote:And in the case of positive and negative, the only thing that I change is that such words can only reference an average, not an absolute.

Yes, as I said:


Have you not read it?

James S Saint wrote:They couldn't grasp the idea that space isn't empty.

They say that the density of the universe is about 10^-31 g/cm³ (estimated).

James S Saint wrote: I am merely pointing out that space is not "zero" and electrons are lower than space; lower "energy", "potential", "PtA", and/or "Affectance". And neither are negative things "equal", even though they have opposite direction of potential/charge relative to the ambient.

So "electrons are lower than space" means that electrons have "'lower energy', 'potential', 'PTA', and/or 'affectance'" than space; but what is your definition of "space" then?

James S Saint wrote:Today, they know that space is not as empty as they had thought ....

Yes, as I said: They estimate that the density of the universe is about 10^-31 g/cm³ (see above).

James S Saint wrote:Today, they know that space is not as empty as they had thought, but the idea of an electron being a higher potential-energy thing still lingers. Ambient space is the "average" that an electron is lower than, and thus properly negative relative to that average.

As I said:


Have you not read it?

James S Saint wrote:Affectance comes much closer to being their "mass field" or "energy field".

But "affectance" is a word, related to "affect", ,"affected", "affection", ... and so on. So if I say "X has more affectance than X, and Y is affected by X", I can also say: "X has more (force of) attractance than X, and Y is attracted by X".  –  James, I know that you sometimes are using other words than the common physicists; but you should allow some comparisons because there are some analogies.

James S Saint wrote:And there is no "attraction" in RM:AO, nor "repulsion". Things merely migrate toward or away from other things due to their constant reforming of themselves based upon the field strength immediately around them. They feel no pulling or pushing. They rebuild themselves a little closer or further away because the field was a little stronger closer or further away. In common physics, a particle is a "solid mass". In RM:AO a particle is a cluster of ultra-fine EMR noise busily buzzing about feeding off of the non-zero space all around it.

So, if we used some words of the common physicists and bring them into RM:AO, we could say: Affectance is a electromagnetic radiation of a electromagnetic field, not a force. Existence is that which has affect.  –  Could you agree with that?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:00 pm

Arminius wrote: The definitions of physicists also mean what their definitions "say".

That is not always the case because many of their words have become ambiguous, such as when they say that a photon has zero mass", they now only mean that it has zero "rest mass" (because it never rests). They declared that the photon could have no mass at all because Relativity implies that if it had any mass at all and traveled at the speed of light, that mass would become infinite. Eventually they discovered that a photon does have mass. So they distinguished the momentum for of mass from the gravity form of mass by calling the latter, "rest mass" (else their Relativity theory would be exposed as wrong).

So in RM:AO, when I say "mass", I am referring to the amount or degree of affectance. A photon is merely a bunch of affectance that is all traveling in the same direction. Because it is all traveling in the same direction, it stays together (mostly). When all of the affectance within a bunch or cluster is traveling the same direction, it cannot form a stable particle because it is out running any accumulating or gathering of affectance, from surrounding space, that would otherwise take place such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino. If you could magically stop a photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle because the surrounding affectance would accumulate into it, making it a cluster of the more common random noisy affectance (internally moving in all directions).

Also when they use the word "particle", they now often refer to something that is in no sense a particle, such as a "gluon". Quarks are "quazi-particles" and formed merely from a puffed up neutrino with a confused charge field allowing for the formation of both neutral and charged polyparticles (one particle made of many). A quark is not a stable particle in its own right. It cannot exist in free space and would reduce to being merely a neutrino if it didn't entirely dissipate.

The point is that they have altered their words' meanings to fit their theory's needs such that at times, their words do not mean what they mean at other times, nor what they originally meant.

RM:AO is all about affects and since all of their words are referring to some kind of affect, everything they talk about relates back to affectance. The issue is merely which form and degree of affect; flowing, random, clustered, dense, or whatever. It is all the same "affectance" merely in varied forms and concentrations. They gave names to some of the forms, but then altered the names they gave, so their words are not exactly coherent any more (much like Hinduism).

Arminius wrote:Have you not read it?

I was agreeing by giving further detail so as to reduce any possible confusion.

Arminius wrote:So "electrons are lower than space" means that electrons have "'lower energy', 'potential', 'PTA', and/or 'affectance'" than space; but what is your definition of "space" then?

Space is the field of relatively lower concentration of affectance, a cloud so then that you cannot see it. Within that cloud of affectance, any concentration becomes noticeable as either a "mass" or a "radiation" depending on how fast it is moving within the surrounding cloud. If all things became un-concentrated, there would be nothing but space made of randomly flowing affectance, unnoticeable, seemingly empty.

An "object" (any and every object) is merely a higher concentration of the affectance of space.

There are only two forms of physical existence;
1) Potential (the situation that brings change, involving locations of concentrations: "PtA")
2) Changing (the potential altering itself into new concentrations and locations: "Affectance")

Science and religious metaphysics have given very many names to the variety of forms of those. Many of the names have become conflated, confused, ambiguous, and incoherent. All that I can do is try to iron out some of what they were referring to with the names they used. When questioning any of the meanings of their words and names, one is merely asking "To what form of affectance is this word referring?"

In Christianity, those exact same two are named;
1) God, the father of creation
2) Creation

But in using Christian words, would you have ever guessed what they were actually talking about? Christian followers guess it wrongly every day and in a variety of ways (as do followers in all of the religions, including secular science).

A black-hole is the "Real God's" actual Hell, not merely "hellish" or "like hell", but the actual physically real Hell, a spot of maximally concentrated chaos, absolutely no discernible order, within the universe of affectance. But in Jewish wording, it would be the "Abyss" wherein all order and form are totally randomized.

Unfortunately Christianity (and others) associated "Heaven" with absolute peace and order, which can only exist conceptually. Physically Heaven can only be partially emulated by relative peace. A far more permanent Heaven requires a high degree of harmonic motion of the separate small concentrations of noisy chaos ("particles", "thoughts", "groups", whatever). The harmonic motion defends the spot of heaven from chaotic interference via its momentum to form a large spot of anentropy within which people can live: SAM.

The religions and science are talking about the same things, merely applying words differently to different forms and degrees. They are ALL talking about Potential and Affectance in their varied forms.


Arminius wrote:But "affectance" is a word, related to "affect", ,"affected", "affection", ... and so on. So if I say "X has more affectance than Y, and Y is affected by X", I can also say: "X has more (force of) attractance than X, and Y is attracted by X".

Affectance has nothing to do with "attraction" except as an aberrant appearance. Locations of concentrated affectance tend to migrate toward each other, unless in their own average potential they are both either above or below the ambient. concentrations of similar potential affectance will migrate away from each other for the exact same reason that religions and governments spread into different lands. They each have similar potential, but each has a different center of concentration, a different focus of concern.

Arminius wrote:James, I know that you sometimes are using other words than the common physicists; but you should allow some comparisons because there are some analogies.

I DO allow their use and I am making those comparisons. That is why I am trying to clarify to what degree they apply and when they can be properly used.
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: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:52 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote: The definitions of physicists also mean what their definitions "say".

That is not always the case because many of their words have become ambiguous, such as when they say that a photon has zero mass", they now only mean that it has zero "rest mass" (because it never rests). They declared that the photon could have no mass at all because Relativity implies that if it had any mass at all and traveled at the speed of light, that mass would become infinite. Eventually they discovered that a photon does have mass. So they distinguished the momentum for of mass from the gravity form of mass by calling the latter, "rest mass" (else their Relativity theory would be exposed as wrong).

They say, "a photon has no mass but a rest mass" - which is in fact a funny statement.

James S Saint wrote:So in RM:AO, when I say "mass", I am referring to the amount or degree of affectance. A photon is merely a bunch of affectance that is all traveling in the same direction. Because it is all traveling in the same direction, it stays together (mostly). When all of the affectance within a bunch or cluster is traveling the same direction, it cannot form a stable particle because it is out running any accumulating or gathering of affectance, from surrounding space, that would otherwise take place such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino. If you could magically stop a photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle because the surrounding affectance would accumulate into it, making it a cluster of the more common random noisy affectance (internally moving in all directions).

Because it is out running any accumulating or gathering of affectance, from surrounding space, that would otherwise take place such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino? Can you explain that a bit more, especially "out running"?

Stop a photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle? Can you explain that a bit more, especially "dissipating"?

James S Saint wrote:Also when they use the word "particle", they now often refer to something that is in no sense a particle, such as a "gluon". Quarks are "quazi-particles" and formed merely from a puffed up neutrino with a confused charge field allowing for the formation of both neutral and charged polyparticles (one particle made of many). A quark is not a stable particle in its own right. It cannot exist in free space and would reduce to being merely a neutrino if it didn't entirely dissipate.

The point is that they have altered their words' meanings to fit their theory's needs such that at times, their words do not mean what they mean at other times, nor what they originally meant.

RM:AO is all about affects and since all of their words are referring to some kind of affect, everything they talk about relates back to affectance. The issue is merely which form and degree of affect; flowing, random, clustered, dense, or whatever. It is all the same "affectance" merely in varied forms and concentrations. They gave names to some of the forms, but then altered the names they gave, so their words are not exactly coherent any more (much like Hinduism).

Mainstream physics is not as closed as a metaphysical ontology (for example: RM:AO).

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:Have you not read it?

I was agreeing by giving further detail so as to reduce any possible confusion.

Arminius wrote:So "electrons are lower than space" means that electrons have "'lower energy', 'potential', 'PTA', and/or 'affectance'" than space; but what is your definition of "space" then?

Space is the field of relatively lower concentration of affectance, a cloud so then that you cannot see it. Within that cloud of affectance, any concentration becomes noticeable as either a "mass" or a "radiation" depending on how fast it is moving within the surrounding cloud. If all things became un-concentrated, there would be nothing but space made of randomly flowing affectance, unnoticeable, seemingly empty.

An "object" (any and every object) is merely a higher concentration of the affectance of space.

There are only two forms of physical existence;
1) Potential (the situation that brings change, involving locations of concentrations: "PtA")
2) Changing (the potential altering itself into new concentrations and locations: "Affectance")

Two pre-conditions: space and time.

James S Saint wrote:Science and religious metaphysics have given very many names to the variety of forms of those. Many of the names have become conflated, confused, ambiguous, and incoherent. All that I can do is try to iron out some of what they were referring to with the names they used. When questioning any of the meanings of their words and names, one is merely asking "To what form of affectance is this word referring?"

In Christianity, those exact same two are named;
1) God, the father of creation
2) Creation

But in using Christian words, would you have ever guessed what they were actually talking about?

Yes. But not in any case.

James S Saint wrote:Christian followers guess it wrongly every day and in a variety of ways (as do followers in all of the religions, including secular science).

A black-hole is the "Real God's" actual Hell, not merely "hellish" or "like hell", but the actual physically real Hell, a spot of maximally concentrated chaos, absolutely no discernible order, within the universe of affectance. But in Jewish wording, it would be the "Abyss" wherein all order and form are totally randomized.

Unfortunately Christianity (and others) associated "Heaven" with absolute peace and order, which can only exist conceptually. Physically Heaven can only be partially emulated by relative peace. A far more permanent Heaven requires a high degree of harmonic motion of the separate small concentrations of noisy chaos ("particles", "thoughts", "groups", whatever). The harmonic motion defends the spot of heaven from chaotic interference via its momentum to form a large spot of anentropy within which people can live: SAM.

The religions and science are talking about the same things, merely applying words differently to different forms and degrees. They are ALL talking about Potential and Affectance in their varied forms.


Arminius wrote:But "affectance" is a word, related to "affect", ,"affected", "affection", ... and so on. So if I say "X has more affectance than Y, and Y is affected by X", I can also say: "X has more (force of) attractance than X, and Y is attracted by X".

Affectance has nothing to do with "attraction" except as an aberrant appearance. Locations of concentrated affectance tend to migrate toward each other, unless in their own average potential they are both either above or below the ambient. concentrations of similar potential affectance will migrate away from each other for the exact same reason that religions and governments spread into different lands. They each have similar potential, but each has a different center of concentration, a different focus of concern.

Arminius wrote:James, I know that you sometimes are using other words than the common physicists; but you should allow some comparisons because there are some analogies.

I DO allow their use and I am making those comparisons. That is why I am trying to clarify to what degree they apply and when they can be properly used.

Right, to clarify!
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:43 pm

Arminius wrote:Because it is out running any accumulating or gathering of affectance, from surrounding space, that would otherwise take place such as to form a particle, an actual neutrino? Can you explain that a bit more, especially "out running"?

Stop a photon from moving without it dissipating, it would form a neutrino particle? Can you explain that a bit more, especially "dissipating"?

A particle is formed by random, ultra-fine, ultra-minuscule "wavelets" of EMR (or "affectance") accumulating around a center location. It happens because as those wavelets of ultra-fine affects encounter each other, the slow each other into a crowd or cluster of noise.

If one has a bunch of EMR or affectance that is propagating through space (a field of affectance), it is traveling at the maximum speed that affects (or "light") can travel through that particular density of affectance. As it propagates, it changes its "center" location, disallowing any "side coming affects or EMR from being slowed toward that center. The center keep moving out of the way of what would have been an accumulation of affectance. Thus the accumulation doesn't occur.

Dissipation occurs when a bunch of affects (EMR) that had an association in either location or direction of propagation, changes or weakens its association, either by slightly changing its location or its direction. What they call a "photon" is merely a relatively large bunch of affectance (EMR) traveling in a single direction. But the truth is that every bit of that photon's affectance isn't propagating exactly in the same direction and even if is started so perfectly, it would be doing so for long. Thus a photon will actually dissipate, spread out, if given enough time and distance.

When photons of light "reflect" (another dubious word) off of a mirror, a very tiny portion of the photon absorbs into the mirror. A photon can only reflect off of so many surfaces before it becomes too small to detect (another defeat of the "quantum" theory). Very small bits of the energy of a photon is taken away with each reflection.

And in reality, the "photon energy" doesn't really "reflect", but rather gets duplicated. The affectance that propagates from a mirror is not the same affectance that came to it. The significance of that is in the fact that once a photon strikes a mirror, a "phantom photon" is produced that continues through the mirror. A "phantom photon", is merely a relative vacuum of affectance that proceeds along the same path that the original photon was on.

Arminius wrote:Mainstream physics is not as closed as a metaphysical ontology (for example: RM:AO).

I'm not sure what you mean by "closed". If you mean that RM:AO is more solidly defined, disallowing ambiguity and conflation of concepts and words, then yes, I agree. But RM is open to any ontological construction that bothers to exactly define its words and their concepts into a coherent understanding of the universe (or anything else for that matter). RM:AO is one particular ontological understanding of ALL of reality, but most obviously of physics where the simplest of concepts can be examined and pieced together into the larger, more familiar picture known to Science.

Arminius wrote:Two pre-conditions: space and time.

Space = "Potential"/"Situation"
Time = "Change".

They aren't "preconditions", but the same things. Together they ARE physical reality.

Arminius wrote:Right, to clarify!

Half of the only purpose in life.
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: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:57 am

You have forgotten to answer this question:

Arminius wrote:So, if we used some words of the common physicists and bring them into RM:AO, we could say: Affectance is a electromagnetic radiation of a electromagnetic field, not a force. Existence is that which has affect. – Could you agree with that?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:12 am

Arminius wrote:You have forgotten to answer this question:

Arminius wrote:So, if we used some words of the common physicists and bring them into RM:AO, we could say: Affectance is a electromagnetic radiation of a electromagnetic field, not a force. Existence is that which has affect. – Could you agree with that?

Oh, sorry. Yes we could say that, but I prefer to add a little;
"Affectance is ultra-fine electromagnetic radiation forming electromagnetic and gravitational fields, not forces. Existence is that which has affect. And is no more than varied concentrations of subtle affect upon affect, found to concentrate into particles with either more or less potential-to-affect than what the average of open space has."

More abstractly or philosophically;
Affectance ≡ an amount of subtle affects upon affects or influences upon influences.

And in physics, that amounts to subtle electric potentials causing electromagnetic radiation as well as mass particles with charge potentials that gather into stable molecules of various types.

In psychology, that amounts to subtle perceived hopes and threats causing behaviors and attitudes with charge potentials that gather into stable mindsets of various types.

In sociology, that amounts to subtle interactions causing social movements and ideologies with charge potentials that gather into stable groups of various types.

In economics, that amounts to subtle exchanges causing currency and incentives (values) with charge potentials that gather into stable banks of various types.
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: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:27 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:Mainstream physics is not as closed as a metaphysical ontology (for example: RM:AO).

I'm not sure what you mean by "closed". If you mean that RM:AO is more solidly defined, disallowing ambiguity and conflation of concepts and words, then yes, I agree. /quote]
I mean it in the sense that it is more defined.

James S Saint wrote:But RM is open to any ontological construction that bothers to exactly define its words and their concepts into a coherent understanding of the universe (or anything else for that matter). RM:AO is one particular ontological understanding of ALL of reality, but most obviously of physics where the simplest of concepts can be examined and pieced together into the larger, more familiar picture known to Science.

Arminius wrote:Two pre-conditions: space and time.

Space = "Potential"/"Situation"
Time = "Change".

You may believe it or not: that is what I wanted to write before I decided to write: „Two pre-conditions: space and time.

James S Saint wrote:They aren't "preconditions", but the same things. Together they ARE physical reality.

Yes, that's right.

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:Right, to clarify!

Half of the only purpose in life.

Are you sure?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:44 am

Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:to clarify!
Half of the only purpose in life.

Are you sure?

"Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony" IS Life.

"Clarify, Verify, ... the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony",
is half of the purpose, and
"Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony"
is the other half.

Yes, I'm very sure.

Anything that continues doing that, stays alive.
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: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:21 am

James, "clarify", "verify", "instill", and "reinforce" are four; so "clarify" is a quarter of that unit.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:40 am

Arminius wrote:James, "clarify", "verify", "instill", and "reinforce" are four; so "clarify" is a quarter of that unit.

It all depends on how you look at it.
The point of verifying is to clarify that the clarity is actually clear.
The point to reinforcing is to ensure that the instillment (or "memory") is instilled.

So Life is really only doing those two things, but applying them to its own effort to do those same two things.
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: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:20 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:James, "clarify", "verify", "instill", and "reinforce" are four; so "clarify" is a quarter of that unit.

It all depends on how you look at it.
The point of verifying is to clarify that the clarity is actually clear.
The point to reinforcing is to ensure that the instillment (or "memory") is instilled.

So Life is really only doing those two things, but applying them to its own effort to do those same two things.

So for you there are two parts and each of them is a more meaningful part than all four parts by themselves or even as a whole?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:42 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:You have forgotten to answer this question:

Arminius wrote:So, if we used some words of the common physicists and bring them into RM:AO, we could say: Affectance is a electromagnetic radiation of a electromagnetic field, not a force. Existence is that which has affect. – Could you agree with that?

Oh, sorry. Yes we could say that, but I prefer to add a little;
"Affectance is ultra-fine electromagnetic radiation forming electromagnetic and gravitational fields, not forces. Existence is that which has affect. And is no more than varied concentrations of subtle affect upon affect, found to concentrate into particles with either more or less potential-to-affect than what the average of open space has."

More abstractly or philosophically;
Affectance ≡ an amount of subtle affects upon affects or influences upon influences.

And in physics, that amounts to subtle electric potentials causing electromagnetic radiation as well as mass particles with charge potentials that gather into stable molecules of various types.

In psychology, that amounts to subtle perceived hopes and threats causing behaviors and attitudes with charge potentials that gather into stable mindsets of various types.

In sociology, that amounts to subtle interactions causing social movements and ideologies with charge potentials that gather into stable groups of various types.

In economics, that amounts to subtle exchanges causing currency and incentives (values) with charge potentials that gather into stable banks of various types.

Thank you.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 24, 2014 7:44 am

Arminius wrote:o for you there are two parts and each of them is a more meaningful part than all four parts by themselves or even as a whole?

Another way to "clarify" and "instill" what I mean is;

A) Clarify or order a situation and then clarify it from multiple perspectives ("verifying")
B) Instill or affix the situation and then affix it from multiple angles ("reinforcing")

The multiple perspectives and angles are not necessary for basic life to begin, but necessary to form a life that is strong enough to withstand entropic forces more permanently. And both of those basic concepts apply inwardly and outwardly. Clarify and instill the situation within your mind and the minds around you. And clarify and instill the situation within your body and the environment/society around you.

The process of doing that forms a purifying momentous harmony both within oneself (causing joy within) and expanding around oneself (causing harmony and safety around). Anything that is in harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself cannot perish (by definition), thus is "anentropic", also known as "holy".

The situation surrounding and including one is the "god" that dictates what one can or cannot do, what will and will not happen. By harmonizing that situation, which includes oneself, one is always favored by ones "god". By making that harmony momentous and expanding it (having the surroundings do the same as one has done to it) that harmony expands the region of ones ultimate authority to be joyfully sustained, ones "loving/supporting god".

For ones surroundings to perform the same function, the surroundings must include life, because life is what one is doing and thus to do the same function, it must also be life. Thus all life becomes an expanding momentous harmony that is anentropic and immutably persisting. SAM is merely a structure/order for ensuring it. It cannot be done without SAM.

That is actually what Christianity (or at least Jesus) was about. I am just "washing the feet" a bit (clarifying the understanding). But don't get me wrong. I am neither a prophet that is never mistaken nor a saint who has never sinned. And that is why it is me clarifying it. It doesn't require a perfect person. It requires a more perfect understanding of the entire situation being improved by the participation of everyone else, whether they be perfect or not. The less perfect must instigate and inspire the more perfect.

The point is to convert the disharmonious into the more harmonious, continually throughout all time, to convert the universe itself into a process of joyous, eternal Life (which includes the foundational physics), not merely a place for life to struggle.
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: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:26 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:o for you there are two parts and each of them is a more meaningful part than all four parts by themselves or even as a whole?

Another way to "clarify" and "instill" what I mean is;

A) Clarify or order a situation and then clarify it from multiple perspectives ("verifying")
B) Instill or affix the situation and then affix it from multiple angles ("reinforcing")

The multiple perspectives and angles are not necessary for basic life to begin, but necessary to form a life that is strong enough to withstand entropic forces more permanently. And both of those basic concepts apply inwardly and outwardly. Clarify and instill the situation within your mind and the minds around you. And clarify and instill the situation within your body and the environment/society around you.

The process of doing that forms a purifying momentous harmony both within oneself (causing joy within) and expanding around oneself (causing harmony and safety around). Anything that is in harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself cannot perish (by definition), thus is "anentropic", also known as "holy".

So for you „anentropic harmony“ is a pleonasm, a tautology.

James S Saint wrote:The situation surrounding and including one is the "god" that dictates what one can or cannot do, what will and will not happen. By harmonizing that situation, which includes oneself, one is always favored by ones "god". By making that harmony momentous and expanding it (having the surroundings do the same as one has done to it) that harmony expands the region of ones ultimate authority to be joyfully sustained, ones "loving/supporting god".

For ones surroundings to perform the same function, the surroundings must include life, because life is what one is doing and thus to do the same function, it must also be life. Thus all life becomes an expanding momentous harmony that is anentropic and immutably persisting. SAM is merely a structure/order for ensuring it. It cannot be done without SAM.

That is actually what Christianity (or at least Jesus) was about. I am just "washing the feet" a bit (clarifying the understanding). But don't get me wrong. I am neither a prophet that is never mistaken nor a saint who has never sinned. And that is why it is me clarifying it. It doesn't require a perfect person. It requires a more perfect understanding of the entire situation being improved by the participation of everyone else, whether they be perfect or not. The less perfect must instigate and inspire the more perfect.

The point is to convert the disharmonious into the more harmonious, continually throughout all time, to convert the universe itself into a process of joyous, eternal Life (which includes the foundational physics), not merely a place for life to struggle.

To convert the "negative charge" into a "positvie charge"?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 24, 2014 7:40 pm

Arminius wrote:So for you „anentropic harmony“ is a pleonasm, a tautology.

Nooo.. not at all. An anentropic harmony is a harmonic process that compensates for ALL interference, thus sustaining itself despite interference. Almost all harmonic processes are temporal, requiring a compatible environment. Anentropic harmony provides for a compatible environment as a part of its process.

Arminius wrote:
The point is to convert the disharmonious into the more harmonious, continually throughout all time, to convert the universe itself into a process of joyous, eternal Life (which includes the foundational physics), not merely a place for life to struggle.

To convert the "negative charge" into a "positvie charge"?

..not unless you define "negative" as merely "disharmonious". Harmony requires highs and lows and thus relatively positives and negatives. To maintain a harmony is to maintain both the required positive and negative elements involved. An atom is an anentropic entity having a harmony consisting of a positive proton and a negative electron. It could not exist without both. Life has both "positive" and "negative" elements (high points and low points in its harmony) as the make of its process and must maintain both. Dying, or not living, is the process of not maintaining some required element of ones make and thus is entropic.
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: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:26 pm

James S Saint wrote:Anything that is in harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself cannot perish (by definition), thus is "anentropic", also known as "holy".

"Anything that is in harmony ... is 'anentropic'". Your words, James.

James S Saint wrote:Almost all harmonic processes are temporal, requiring a compatible environment.

A process is always temporal because of the meaning of the word "process". Thus all processes are always temporal.

James S Saint wrote:Anentropic harmony provides for a compatible environment as a part of its process.

....

Harmony requires highs and lows and thus relatively positives and negatives. To maintain a harmony is to maintain both the required positive and negative elements involved. An atom is an anentropic entity having a harmony consisting of a positive proton and a negative electron. It could not exist without both. Life has both "positive" and "negative" elements (high points and low points in its harmony) as the make of its process and must maintain both. Dying, or not living, is the process of not maintaining some required element of ones make and thus is entropic.

And there are no oppositions? No "highs" and "lows" as a pair of opposition? No "high point" and "low point" as a pair of opposition? No "positive proton" and "negative electron" as a pair of opposition? No "positive element" and "negative element" as a pair of opposition? No "top" and "bottom" as a pair of opposition? No "left" and "right" as a pair of opposition? ...?
Last edited by Arminius on Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:45 pm

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Anything that is in harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself cannot perish (by definition), thus is "anentropic", also known as "holy".

"Anything that is in harmony ... is 'anentropic'". Your words, James.

Is there some reason you left out the crucial stipulation?
What is your point?

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Almost all harmonic processes are temporal temporary, requiring a compatible environment.

A process is always temporal because of the meaning of the word "process". Thus all processes are always temporal

Sorry, a better word would have "temporary", "existing for a limited amount of time".

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Anentropic harmony provides for a compatible environment as a part of its process.

....

Harmony requires highs and lows and thus relatively positives and negatives. To maintain a harmony is to maintain both the required positive and negative elements involved. An atom is an anentropic entity having a harmony consisting of a positive proton and a negative electron. It could not exist without both. Life has both "positive" and "negative" elements (high points and low points in its harmony) as the make of its process and must maintain both. Dying, or not living, is the process of not maintaining some required element of ones make and thus is entropic.

And there are no oppositions? No "highs" and "lows" as a pair of opposition? No "high point" and "low point" as a pair of opposition? No "positive proton" and "negative electron" as a pair of opposition? No "positive element" and "negative element" as a pair of opposition? No "top" and "bottom" as a pair of opposition? No "left" and "right" as a pair of opposition? ...?

There can be no "negative existence". What would "negative existence" even mean to you? Less than not there at all?

A potential is a situation that provides for (causes) a change. One can have zero cause for change (conceptually) but how could there ever be a "negative cause for change"? What would that even conceptually mean? Something either changes or it doesn't.

A negative potential is merely a situation lacking in positive potential relative to a subjectively chosen standard/average/ambient. There is no "opposition" involved. The negative is simply where ever the positive isn't. And "zero" is merely a mental marker to establish a direction arbiter. One can have opposing directions; "right/left", "up/down", "forward back". But a potential or an existence (affectance object) cannot be objectively negative, because there can be no negative existence or negative ability to cause a change. There is either a potential or there isn't. And some thing either exists or it doesn't.

Highs and lows, like right and left, are subjective and relative to a chosen standard "zero point". In physical reality, there is no "zero" and certainly nothing less than zero. Harmony, whether anentropic or not, requires highs and lows, rights and lefts, forwards and backwards, but only a subjectively conceptual "zero".

So when we say "opposite", we can only coherently mean "subjectively opposite direction to our chosen standard/average/ambient".
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: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:35 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:"Anything that is in harmony ... is 'anentropic'". Your words, James.

Is there some reason you left out the crucial stipulation?

Yes, there is just a simple syntactical reason. Your sentence means: "If anything is in harmony, then it is 'anentropic'". Thus being in harmony is being "anentropic".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:48 pm

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:"Anything that is in harmony ... is 'anentropic'". Your words, James.

Is there some reason you left out the crucial stipulation?

Yes, there is just a simple syntactical reason. Your sentence means: "If anything is in harmony, then it is 'anentropic'". Thus being in harmony is being "anentropic".

Emmm.. no.

"Harmony" is not the same as "harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself".
Those are two different categories.

"Harmony" is the archetype category for all forms of harmony.
"Harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself" is one particular subset/type/subcategory, of harmony within the category, "harmony" ... and the only one that is anentropic.
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: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:56 pm

You mean your sentences do not have any syntactical structure? :)
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Universe and Time

Postby James S Saint » Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:58 pm

Arminius wrote:Do your sentences not have any syntactical structure? :)

What "structure" did you want it to have that wasn't there? :-s

Perhaps;
"Anything that is in harmony both within itself as well as surrounding itself cannot perish (by definition)"
"Anything that is in a harmony that is both a harmony within itself as well as in harmony with whatever is surrounding itself, cannot perish (by definition)"
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: Universe and Time

Postby Arminius » Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:09 am

James S Saint wrote:What "structure" did you want it to have that wasn't there?

I did not want a syntactical structure because a syntactical structure is given anyway, unless it is invalid, false.

Please tell me then what the exact definitions of "harmony" and "anentropy" are according to RM:AO.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]