If a set of informations require communication in spatial locations, you’d get a pattern of particles between each, but immediately they would interfere with one another creating random noise. I’d visualise this as like particles being like snooker balls [naturally they are not like that] and fired from around the edge of the table; first you have order then they meet and you get chaos.
Ok I am lost now because I don’t know Gaussian math. You appear to still be describing something which comes after something else. Again the logic follows through once we get there ~ what I could deduce of it.
“affectance field very seldom actually becomes so dense that it could cause more particles to form”
Hmm interesting. An information based universe doesn’t require limits, as here physicality itself is considered differently [long debate]. In a ‘total universe’ I don’t understand how multiple universes would arrive at that completeness given its [total universe] unlimitedness and the universes/the collection of universes limitedness?
Indeed, but what do scientists think information is? and is that all kinds of informations.
EugeneMorrow
How do you do and thanks. hopefully I can keep it relevant.
I was asking for current formal “information lingo”. But keep in mind, that I am talking about infinities and infinitudes, not countable particles.
For all practical purposes during this, “Gaussian” merely means “randomly distributed”, having no given portion necessarily greater or lesser than any other.
Oh, I was taking you to be the “information theory expert”, not me.
But I can’t understand what you just said in that last part.
11.) Any maximum accumulation that is not continually supported disseminates.
12.) When affects add to more than a maximum, part of those affects continues to attempt adding while the extra portion deflects away from the maximum - “Inertia”.
13.) When the clump of noise is large enough, the surface of the clump is supported only by affectance mostly reflecting off of it while adding only what little bit had already managed to disseminate – “Entropic Shell” forming a stable Particle – a “standing wave” of noise.
14.) When the ambient affectance density of a particle increases, the particle cannot disseminate at the same rate as what is being added, so the particle grows.
This needs to be one of the revelations to Science because they have always assumed that each particle has a fixed size and mass, so their equations are often slightly off. A high-energy situation will cause the particles involved to have slightly greater mass and volume than those same particles in a lower energy situation. There is no alternative to this fact.
15.) If the ambient affectance noise is denser on one side of a particle than the opposite, the center of the clump of noise shifts toward the more dense affectance field.
16.) When the center of the noise shifts, the front of the particle becomes more dense reflecting more ambient affectance and allowing less dissemination.
17.) When the center of the noise shifts, the back of the particle becomes less dense reflecting less ambient affectance and allowing more dissemination.
18.) Because the affectance could not escape from the front, but only from the back, the remaining affectance within the particle is the affectance that was headed in the direction that the particle itself was headed.
19.) Because the affectance within the clump of noise has more affectance heading in the direction of the particle, the particle continues heading in that direction even if the ambient affectance is returned to an even surrounding – “Momentum”.
20.) Because each particle is emanating affectance and creating a higher density field surrounding it, particles migrate toward each other while gaining momentum – “Gravity”.
Now once all of those 20 concepts are confidently understood, we can get into the charge field and types of particles; electrons, positrons, neutrinos, neutrons, protons, gluons, muons… After that, we can briefly (I hope) see the strong and weak “forces” which are actually merely strong and weak aberrant effects.
Related to this thread, from a thread concerning overpopulation growth;
On a physics level, contention/conflict/collision of affectance grows a “particle”. That particle stops growing only when it is losing contention as fast as it is accumulating it.
This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).
Amorphos,
What you are saying is interesting and gives a new way to compare qm, TEW and RM. At the right time, I will ask a question about this.
James,
You wrote:
To me, this is some knowledge about affectance that we need to clarify, because it underpins all the logic steps you are constructing.
The best way to clarify this is for me to asks some questions:
A. Is affectance a wave or a particle or both? We seem to have waves of affectance, and yet particles being made up of affectance (which suggests tiny particles of affectance).
B. If affectance can change between between being a wave and a particle, what controls this conversion?
C. Could the affectance in a particle change back into a wave? Would it affect the particle if it did?
In qm, waves and particle are considered to be the same thing. In TEW, waves and particles are entirely separate ideas and physical objects. I am not clear on where RM stands.
In those initial steps, do you see anything about particles?
From a few pages back;
It is logically impossible for any particle of anything to form beneath the “Level of Inertia”. For inertia or form to exist and be maintained, there must be a reason for it. The smaller anything gets, there less reason there is for anything particular to happen. Thus any reason for particles to exist cannot itself exist on an infinitely small level. There can be no particles or forms of any kind involving any infinitely small size. The only thing that can exist at such extremes is merely differences between infinitely small points. As those points affect each other, random waves of affect are formed and propagate.
A particle begins to form when;
A particle is merely a “clump of noisy waves”, a congestion of random noise and a “standing wave” of that noisiness. It is the center of the brawl at a concert where the maximum contention has been reached. But there are no “sub-particles” within a fundamental particle.
This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).
James,
Thanks for the continuing patience with teaching us all this.
Your last two posts subtly contain the bits of RM applied to physics where I have two problems.
My first problem is whether affectance is a wave or a particle. My question seemed to be definitely answered with this:
So it seems that affectance is a wave.
Then we look at the diagram in the last post (First Particle.jpg). The words say “Strictly Random Waves of Noisy Affectance”, and yet the diagram has dots on it. Dots communicate the idea of particles, not waves. Recently, you were describing a particle forming from tiny particles of affectance. The idea of affectance being a particle creeps in to the descriptions.
To me, RM seems to have it both ways - affectance behaving as a wave or a particle whenever it’s convenient.
My second problem is that even if affectance is definitely a wave there will be problems.
Particles are made of affectance, so they are made of waves. How does that work? A wave is something that moves. We can have standing waves, and that is a wave that reflects off boundaries that the wave cannot cross, so a standing wave is still moving - it’s going backwards and forwards.
How can a particle be made of standing waves of affectance? The entropic shell can be crossed by affectance - affectance can certainly leave, for example. So if the entropic shell is not a hard, physical barrier, how can the affectance waves be standing waves inside it? If the particle is a zone of maximum affectance, the waves of affectance will only be able to move in one direction - outwards.
The idea of a particle being composed of waves means that all the waves must be moving in the same direction (roughly) or the whole particle would simply disperse. What keeps them so accurately coordinated? I see no mechanism that could be so comprehensive.
As you can see, I am very uncomfortable with the idea a particle is composed of waves. I cannot really get my brain around the logical reasoning for RM in physics until I sort this one out.
This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).
James,
I know we’re going over a previous post of yours. I am finally getting clear on the questions I want to ask about RM in physics, so that’s why I’m going into a lot more detail about this now.
I accept that a diagram about a particle forming from a sea of waves is challenging. To me, waves and particles are entirely separate ideas, like a boat on an ocean. I don’t see how the ocean can form the boat.
The picture I am getting of RM in physics is that a particle is some waves of affectance that have reached a maximum, and are like locked together like sumo wrestlers.
The simple things are fine. Waves adding together is basic wave behavior. I think of large freak waves at rocky shoreline when I look at the three waves in the diagram you repeated.
I’m also fine with a maximum. For example, water has a maximum compressibility.
I’m also fine with waves reflecting off a maximum point. I think of water waves reflecting off a vertical edge of a swimming pool.
When we get to waves delaying, I start to get uncomfortable. Cars in traffic will slow down at a congestion point, but water waves just catch up with each other and add higher and higher. If the water waves were in a tunnel, so there is a maximum wave height, I think the wave motion starts to disintegrate, just like water waves crashing on a rocky shoreline. The regular motion of the water wave loses it’s consistent movement and becomes chaotic, and may eventually end up heating the water, and that’s no longer a wave. So sometimes the limitations of maximum and the environment means the a water wave no longer exists.
Then we get to this bit:
I do not accept that “delay” is a deduction - I think this depends on the nature of affectance, and whether it is like water - has hydrogen bonds and is in a medium. Things get messy with the idea of “delay” and “waves” coming together.
Then we get to the idea that a particle, which is stable and stationery compared to waves of affectance. I do not see that the words “maximum”, “reflection” and “delay” lead to a particle being stable with a fairly consistent entropic shell. To me the affectance is moving and it’s a big ask to accept that suddenly a whole bunch of noisy waves are somehow doing the sumo wrestler thing and getting locked together for a long period of time.
Perhaps a whole lot of affectance waves in different directions exactly match and so stop moving. How does a wave stop moving - is it still a wave? When we talk about a wave not moving anymore, suddenly we’re starting to talk like it is a particle. If it starts moving again does it change back into a wave? To me, this really confuses the idea of wave when we have lots of it stick together somehow.
If the affectance wave stops moving and sticks together, we still have a problem. Why wouldn’t passing ambient affectance collide again and set the wave bits in motion again? Think of the start of a snooker or billiards game - one ball hits a bunch and sometimes all of them chaotically disperse. So to me, a particle might briefly exist - for an instant. Why does it persist?
You mentioned about a particle accepting affectance at the front and losing it at the back. To me that assumes the persistence is already happening and already starts mixing the ideas of waves and particles.
Once we have a way for the particle to persist, RM needs to explain the specific sizes. For me there is gigantic gap between waves of affectance coming together and the particles we see in physics.
Both qm and TEW just accept elementary particles as a given. RM in physics is being monumentally ambitious trying to explain what particles really are. I hope you can convince me while keeping “waves” and “particles” as separate concepts.
Eugene, sorry for sidetracking your most interesting thread!
My interest here is that your wave inversion suggests a communicative cyclicity, which is how I think info works [as relative to the holographic principle]. Unfortunately I don’t see things as physicists do so I am struggling to translate the comparatives.
James
Thanks for the answers.
My last point asking what scientist think information is [see also below], has importance because I can give a whole list of info types, but physics seems to assume only the collocative variety. There could be other informations aside from physical patterns, I even question if info as we know it in our minds could possibly derive purely from that, if there wasn’t more anthropic and other informations also doing the informing; how can one read or translate from patterns without knowing the code [one for Turing to solve there ]?
True, except as an emptiness. > true for a somethingness.
True, and a cyclic communication between affectance and infinity could be writing the information background ~ or is doing that [thats what affectance is], I dont like to limit info to purely physical patterns though [hence the questions on what science thinks info is]. I have no idea how we arrive at affectance first though [is an eternal?]…
So we have a void [infinite emptiness] + a potential for energy or affectance, but that potential cannot be perfectly distributed throughout infinity. Thus it distributes as affectance and the rest of the link follows.
I am tempted to think that there is ‘something’ [of zero value possibly] which becomes affectance, and IS evenly distributed throughout infinity, then that [being unlimited] gives infinite potentiality.
I am amiss as to how we get from that to affectance, what happens after the potential and before the affectance?
We assign values to the patterns and create the code ourselves.
Information theory isn’t a different “thing”, but a different view of the same “thing”.
Merely a different mental language. But you can’t mix languages and make any rational sense.
Either talk about particles and forms or about information data and sets. They are completely different ontologies.
It is even true of emptiness. It is easy to imagine pure 100% emptiness, infinitely pure in its lack. But it is logically impossible for it to physically exist.
First realize that the concept of a potential is that of an unstable situation.
A loaded gun has more potential than unloaded.
A loaded gun in the hand has more potential.
A loaded gun, cocked in the hand has more potential.
A loaded gun, cocked in the hand of an angry person has more potential.
In common usage “Potential” merely means a situation that is unlikely to remain as it is.
But in more precise language involving the fundamental universe, a potential is not dependent upon any trigger being pulled.
It is merely dependent upon the time it takes to go from one potential (one situation) to the next.
Affectance is the changing of the potential.
There is nothing between the situation of falling out of an airplane and hitting the ground other than a little time.
The situation of the entire universe is that the situation in each locality is different than what is beside it.
That is an unstable situation that doesn’t require anyone to push it out of the airplane.
Every location is always falling into the locations surrounding it.
Every situation is affecting the situations around it, which in turn affect the first… endlessly.
The universe exists because of the unstable situation of every location having different levels of affect and taking time to change.
But that situation in its entirety, cannot change.
The questions you are asking are critically important to get straight, so I don’t mind going to some extra effort, although I am limited as to what words and pictures that I can dig up. To me it is intuitively obvious, which is what happens once you begin working with it. It becomes more and more obvious that it involves principles concerning all things. It alters your mental perspective at a fundamental level, after which the world becomes merely a lot of senseless but understandable “noise”.
Can you see the stability of a whirlpool? A whirlpool is a stable “particle”, maintaining its overall form due to the changing and flow going on inside of it. As it turns out, all particles are made that same way. When what goes is equal to what comes out, the form (the “particle”) is stable and itself, representing the overall form, doesn’t change (much). A cloud is another example wherein ALL of the water droplets are moving at fast rates, yet the cloud as a whole might be standing quite still.
The difference between a whirlpool and a particle is merely that the particle is a three dimensional whirlpool creating its own gravity, thus eternal and mostly independent (it still requires an ambient field within which to continue its accumulating and dispensing - a never ending, never “stopping” function).
I think that you might be confusing an important issue.
It isn’t an issue of how high the affectance or potential reaches. It is an issue of how fast it is trying to get there.
There is a maximum rate of change, of increase or decrease. It doesn’t care how high you want to get, but it does care how fast you want it done.
You can conquer the galaxy, but you absolutely cannot do it in the next 5 minutes.
The maximum that is reached is NOT the height of the hump, but the rate of the ramp.
That becomes an important issue because time is involved. By merely a delay, the maximum rate is already undermined. Thus for the maximum to remain at a maximum, continual efforts (affectance) must be added such as to keep the rate of change at a maximum all the time. Just like with the whirlpool, the water is falling into the whirlpool, so more water must be continually added, else there will be no falling and no whirlpool. But you don’t run out of water, just as to don’t run out of affectance. It continually recycles, sometimes through a short local cycle within the particle and sometimes through a very long and distant cycle extending far outside the particle.
Note that the red dashed line is a RAMP and denotes the maximum that cannot be exceeded.
It is not and issue of the height.
There is a maximum frequency concerning EM waves (or anything actually) directly associated with propagation speed, the speed of light. Both have a maximum. But frequency is an issue of RATE of CHANGE, not height of value.
Delay is FORCED by the maximum rate of change.
If you have a maximum rate, delay is the obvious consequence.
Maximum rate MEANS forced delay (assuming sufficient effort was being made in the first place).
Affecting, affectance is the changing.
The changing has a maximum rate for changing (it cannot be infinite - “instantaneous”)
Thus affecting, “Affectance”, is delayed until it stops trying to go beyond the maximum rate.
The same is true for light and for the same reason.
The propagation of light is delayed by the fact that it has a maximum speed. Thus it cannot instantly show up at a distance.
Equally affect cannot instantly show up at a greater or lesser value.
There is no “stopping of moving” (except for the location of the congestion). The particle is defined ONLY by the location of the congestion. That is all any particle actually is. But nothing stops inside the particle, things merely reach a maximum change rate and must take longer to achieve the change they are trying to effect. While they are taking that time, more affectance flows in. By the time the first finally accomplished what it was after, another is already trying again, thus the maximum rate effort is continually supported, just as with the whirlpool.
I am trying to get there. But you need a solid grasp of the fundamental mechanism. It becomes very important concerning both gravity and charge (not to mention the sizes).
A particle is the “collection”.
A wave is the distribution of the changing.
If the distribution of changing gets confined (for whatever reason), it becomes a collection.
Every particle is merely a collection of the waves within… just like the whirlpool, except much harder.
I am trying to come up with some pics that will make the whole reflection and delay thing more obvious for you.
It will take some time.
Realize that I am claiming that Rational Metaphysics is factual and not merely a theory for a reason.
First it is founded on pure definitional Logic.
But more than that, just to ensure my reasoning, I spent about 2 years developing a program to create a “metaspace” using the RM principles. It only took that long because I had to try everything that didn’t work before I settled on what does work (typical homosapian behavior). The only guiding light being “the Lack of Alternatives” (the essence of logical proof). Once you accept what does work and stop trying all of the things that don’t work, it is all pretty easy (Basic Buddhism). But it can take a lifetime to figure out all of the things that don’t work and ensure that they don’t. In the process, I proved why many geometries and thoughts could not possibly work before I settled on what had to be done despite the encumbrance that it proposed.
In the end, the metaspace program, without being told to do so, displayed all of the delays that we are talking about, all of the particles and the behaviors noted by contemporary physics. So that constituted the “second proof”, somewhat empirical. That computer and metaspace program, “Jack”, was built entirely from the first few principles in that list of 20 items. I explained those first few principles to Jack in computer logic (finding it easier than explaining it to people). The rest of those items are merely me trying to explain to other people what Jack then explained to me.
The hard part for me, is merely the effort to communicate the immutable facts to others who are accustom to thinking in different terms. The end result is that it all leads to an exact explanation for ALL of physics as well as every other activity of Man and the universe.
This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).
Amorphos,
Your information discussions are interesting too - keep James on his toes.
James,
I can accept there is a long way to go to particles of specific sizes. I’ll keep to the foundations you are laying.
Let’s look at two waves heading in opposite directions and meeting, where they add together. We include the concept of a maximum slope to the wave at any point, which restricts the adding together, as shown in your diagram:
I think the result of this depends on the type of wave involved, and the medium the wave is in (if relevant). We potentially could have longitudinal and transverse waves of affectance. As well, affectance may vary in behavior depending on the background level of affectance or location or some other factor. The maximums could vary with conditions too.
I think the “Delay Forward” and “Reflect Backward” parts are both assumptions about how the stuff behaves. Modeling this mathematically involves all sorts of assumptions about what happens. I am thinking of effects like sonic booms in air - we cannot be sure exactly what will happen without knowing the mechanics.
RM is confidently talking about what affectance must do, but I don’t accept that the options are so limited. To me, affectance MIGHT do all sorts of things. How can RM be so sure about colliding waves of affectance?
Things like water and air have a variety of other reasons besides (but including) reaching some maximum rate of change for their delays and reflections. On the sub-particle level, we don’t have those other concerns to talk about. All we have is maximum rate of change and the impossibility of homogeneity.
Also I have already mentioned that affectance is in a 3D environment whereas my picts are merely 2D simplifications to relay the concept. So, as pointed out in one pictorial, “reflection” is not the only alternative. Affectance can deflect around a reached maximum as well. So let me now use the word “deflection” which includes backward reflection as an option along with any other concerns of change in direction.
Maximum rate of change MEANS delay in the changing and thus in the propagation of that changing. What alternative is there other than either delay or deflection? The lack of alternatives is the guide. So while I am working up yet another more sophisticated pic in an effort to communicate this, how about you tell me how there can be a challenged maximum rate of change and there NOT be a delay and/or deflection.
This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).
James,
One of the features of RM you have talked about is the logical necessity of the statements of RM. I can accept lots of things like Infinite homogeneity is logically impossible.
For RM in physics, we are talking about affectance, which is the stuff that makes up the universe - matter and energy. When we start talking about what happens if affectance collides and the maximum rate of change is reached, I am reminded of how messy and complex the real world is. I just can’t be sure what will happen, and I don’t accept we can logically determine it.
I think the way to get past this point is to simply state that RM proposes that this is how affectance behaves. It’s a postulate or assumption of the theory. For qm and TEW there are heaps of assumptions, and any theory in physics has assumptions. If the assumptions end up producing sensible and accurate results, then you can claim your assumptions are realistic.
I can work with that. I’m just digging my heels in at the idea that we can logically deduce what affectance will do, once and for all.
I know RM claims to have no assumptions. My own view is that the RM statements on how affectance collides and forms particles has assumptions, and that’s OK.
I understand that you are very accustom to dealing with reasonable speculations. But it is not “Okay”.
I had asked a very specific and important question;
I need an answer.
This is not merely JSSRM we are talking about. This is serious RM. This issue is merely the cause of delay and/or reflection at a fundamental level before there is such a thing as a “particle” or anything “hard”. It proposes why the very quality of harness ever comes out of mere waves (“Inertia”). Later things will get more complicated and if you hold onto doubt concerning even this issue, that doubt will add to the complexity of other issues. The creation of inertia is very fundamental to the whole endeavor and without which there could be no universe of anything but waves.
We are not at this time concerned with all of the other things that might be going on. We are taking the whole construct one board and nail at a time.
This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).
James,
I understand we are looking at the foundations of RM in physics, so we need to go one step at a time. Thanks for being so patient with me on this one.
We are talking about two waves of affectance colliding, and there is a maximum rate of change that applies, and the addition of the two waves might exceed that maximum rate of change at some points. You asked a question:
Let me give you my thought process.
Sure, deflection (including reflection) are typical wave behaviors.
I think delay is not really a wave behavior - it is something that happens to things like water that have stopped becoming a wave and are moving chaotically. I cannot accept delay as a logical necessity here - to me it’s too undefined and implies all sorts of knowledge about affectance we don’t have at this point.
It brings up issues such as how fast waves of affectance can move (slowest and fastest speeds), can they change speed and what makes that happen, can they change frequency/wavelength and what makes that happen, are the effects permanent or temporary, and whether affectance is always a wave or can be some other form.
If there is delay, then delay can vary for different parts of the affectance - so we need to ask what is the way of selecting parts to behave differently, what is the granularity of each part, how much delay for each part, how can we measure it and how do the part affect each other? It opens a huge can of worms.
There may be some other possibilities (other than deflection and delay) that we haven’t thought of. How can we be sure we know all the alternatives? This is a situation where a scientist is more like to say “let’s do an experiment” (and of course we can’t do such an experiment). I think logic has not enough to work with here.
I can go forward accepting delay and deflection as assumptions. How could a philosopher decide that something so potentially complex is absolutely proven?
Yeah, suspected that… didn’t answer the question…oooh, well…
Well, might want to think again.
Heaven forbid that there would be something for scientists and philosophers to do with their minds and the rest of their lives.
That is why it takes a logician/philosopher to first see it. All “seeing” is through the mind.
Not really.
By understanding absolute proof and “Definitional Logic”.
Unwittingly, you have actually been participating in the very principle we were just discussing. Two small waves of affect interacting until a maximum is reached that cannot be surpassed. At first there is a delay, an effort to fill in the crevices, and then finally diversion and/or reflection.
If we could have gotten further, you could have seen exactly how this principle is involved in why electrons don’t fall into protons. Each insisting on their own way. The proton insisting that all be positive. The electron insisting that all be negative. The difference between them, too much to breech in too short a time. Contention creates the eternal atom, eternally separated parts creating an eternal whole.
Of course there is a way around such problems, but that is like maybe chapter 14.
You have been of great help getting language issues straighten out a bit. Thank you for that. It is difficult to explain rationality to the layman. But without the effort the unseen keeps the seen confused and suffering. We were shortly going to get into how it is that all that is seen is, and always has been, caused by the unseen and must always remain so to at least a small degree (despite the fantasies of Homeworld Security). But the unseen, even the “security” agent, is the adversary to every eye and every life.
The religions and the faithful are satisfied with life being this;
The endeavor of Science and its following is to make it more like this;
But I say if you are going to go that way, then do it right.
Rational Metaphysics prefers to start it all over and make it like this;
But then if you trip over step 3, what are the chances of getting to step 50 without falling on your ass?
Both TEW and QM intend to accept the unseen and unknowable with the slight difference being merely that perhaps one is slightly simpler than the other, Occam’s Razor. One with unseen magic “particlized fundamental forces”. The other with unseen “magic marker elemental waves”. But that leaves it to merely a question of momentum. TEW has maybe a handful of followers. QM has in the 100 thousands with serious religious and financial backing.
]?
