RM AND VO

Yes James, i know that because i did not have that opportunity during our previous discussion in JSSRM. I was merely trying to learn something from you in that thread, neither discussing nor arguing.

[u]It is neither in virtue nor in manners for a learner to argue with his master. The learner has to throw his all previous knowledge out of his mind in order to create intellectual vacuum in his mind, otherwise, he would never able to grasp his master in real terms.

But, when the master thinks and declares that his (learner) education has been completed, the learner would become master himself, and allowed to argue and even refute his teacher. It was a very established practice both in Sufism and Hinduism. But, disagreement does not entail disrespect. Though, western mindset finds this pill bit too hard to digest.[/u]

And, it also looks a bit oxymoron too that how the learner can challenge his master. But, it is necessary for the sake of intellectual liberty and further development of the knowledge.

That is true.

James, will is will, nothing else.

The will was pure initially. Will entails change or event and that requires time and space.

It was not inclined to anything, because, it was unable to do so as there was nothing available to fall for. But, being a will, it has to fall for something and thus, falls for itself. That is why and how it started to multiply itself and condensed (in the same way as RM predicts).

Will created attributes itself by condensing and then again, fell for those attributes.

Not at all James, not at all.

You are right when you say that will must come something that is doing the willing.

And, that is precisely what consciousness is as willing comes from it.

That is the only point where i differ from you because i take that source of will as the base ingredient, not will.

Consciousness, as the source of will or Affectance.

I understand and accept that too.

The only addition i want to make that it would be better if one can confirm his declaration by evidence, because it is possible.

To me, that is true definition and purpose of the religion and spirituality as the mean of physical verification of metaphysics.

James, i am not sure that the term will and its enactment gives right impression or not.

I would like to call it that entity, which is willing simply, or consciousness as a noun.

No James. I am not supposed to take the credit of that because i do not think that i deserve that by any means.

I am not who discovered it as it was known since 5000 years. I am just refreshing the issue and try to put all related and pertinent metaphysical issues into the perspective in order to make those easily and comprehensible to all, both with reasoning and evidence too.

I wish if destiny would ever allow me do that.

with love,
sanjay

I agree with all of that except in the West to refer to someone as your “master” is very, very demeaning to both parties. It is a word too closely associated with slavery, abuse, and dictatorships, whether it should be or not.

That isn’t really acceptable. If a word doesn’t represent a concept or that concept has no definition to reveal its detailed form, attributes, and/or characteristics, then it is a useless word and/or concept except as something to imbue confusion, dissonance, and disharmony. Without definition, a word is meaningless because the definition is the meaning.

Okay, but you are presuming an “initial” stage. RM:AO doesn’t accept an initial stage of the universe. There was no beginning.

I can follow that because now I understand what You mean by “will” and RM:AO. But don’t expect the average Westerner to have the slightest clue what you just said.

“Not at all. Not at all” but “You are right”???

Yeah, I suspected that you were going to go there. I’m afraid now you are going to have to define “consciousness”. It seems that you are saying that within that small particle-less volume, there is consciousness. That is going to take a lot of clarifying.

I think that is where you are misunderstanding.

One declares what is meant by a “ghost” (for example). He need not have the slightest evidence that a ghost exists. Ghosts become a part of his ontology because he declared them as such. His ontology is not subject to evidential approval. His ontology is either applicable to the universe for sake of some purpose or it isn’t useful. But it cannot be said to be untrue unless it has internal incoherence (illogically constructed).

I can tell you that the original intent of the word “ghost” referred to something very real. But because no definition was set forth, the word came to mean something very unreal. RM requires definitions for that reason. Any understanding can be a subset of RM such as “RM:VO” or “RM:ZO” as long as definitions are included and logic concerning those definitions is coherent. But if you cannot either quote a dictionary or write one, then you cannot construct an RM suitable ontology.

An ontology is either logical or illogical (or perhaps bits and pieces of both). It has nothing to do with “truth”. The ontology is then useful if it assists in the performance of a function such as predicting events or satisfying questions. Evidence is merely the observation that the ontology was or wasn’t useful. Evidence is the verification of the ontology’s worthiness, not its truthfulness. Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics are ontologies. One is used to as to predict subatomic behavior. The other is used to create musings for the populous. Neither has anything to do with truth.

Science uses evidence so as to demonstrate that an ontological construct was or wasn’t wrong. It can say nothing about whether it is true. Another ontology could perhaps be equally demonstrated. Which would be “true”?

What you are not “supposed” to do is presume that you are a master of a school of thought if the masters of that school have not told you that you are.

The only thing that you can be master of, is your own understanding that perhaps you presume to be equal to that of others before you. But if Buddha did not tell you that you are a master of Buddhism, then you are only a master of your interpretation of Buddhism. And that can perhaps have a name, such as “Mahayana” or “Theravada”. But no one is a master of Siddhartha Gautama except himself.

You are attempting to express an understanding that you believe to be similar or identical to many before you. And you might be right about that, but are you to be so impertinent as to declare yourself a teacher of great ontologies without them informing you that you truly understand them? It is them that you are talking about when you use their words.

Your understanding is “Zinnat’s Ontology” which humbly attempts to be the same as another before it.

My understanding is called “Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology” and makes no attempt to be similar to anything before it (whether it actually is or not). It is merely what it is. I am only the “master” of it because I created it… from scratch. I could use some assistance in that regard, but such isn’t likely.

James, do not push the words too far but look at the intention behind those.

I am not talking about Master/slave issue. That is why i used Learner not Slave. And, that implies that Master means merely a Teacher, not some sort of owner.

James, i have defined that already.

For further clarification, will is intention to make things happen, to change the present status of itself and is the secondary cause of all the manifestation, except consciousness.

That is more of linguistic issue than perception.
I accept the initial stage but not in way as you think. The concept of Initial stage is valid in the context of will only, not consciousness.

I am not saying that there was a beginning or there would be any end. The consciousness is beyond time and eternal, Thus, it was always there and would be always there. So, there is no question of beginning or end. Everything else around it tends to change. All other things come and go because of will.

in other words, or as per RM, Ideally, the consciousness is the state of perfect un-entropy but the problem with it that it cannot remain so because of will. The whole of creation, manifestation or existence (other than consciousness) is entropy or intrusion because of will. So, it comes and goes as well.

Well, this is the impression i also got so far in the last three years on various forums.

Yes, i am saying that consciousness was there. I am not sure about volume. But, it is not a concept, but cartainly, a form of matter, though not physical as we perceive. And, this is the originator of the will.

Agreed.

Agreed again. I have been put forth the definitions of both of consciousness and Will. And, also can clarify further.

James, i think that we have some differences here.

I agree that an ontology can be logical or illogical beccause it stands on a particular declayred definition. But, i do not see that much difference in Truth and Worthiness.

You are saying that its worthiness depends on whether it can predicts events within its zone successfully or not, and, that is the only critaria. I also agree with this, but an perfect ontology demands more than that.

An perfect ontology should not able to predict events only, but, its predictions must be facts also. This is to say that an ontology must work successfully with the realty also, not merely concepts. This test decides its worthiness.
An ontology is useless if it answers only in concepts, but those differ from the ground rality. if this happens, then it means that someting must has gone wrong somewhere.

As i see it, at the end of the day, there is no difference between worthiness and trueness. Because, if an onltogy is not right and true, then it is going to fail sooner or later. Because, at some point, it would lose the support of the evedence/observation as these would not match exactly with predictions.

Let us not make it either a hypothetical or technical issue only.

That is true.

James, i got your point and technically you are right too because there is no way of personal confirmation available for me
But, you did not got me either.

At the time when i started, i was neither aware of those scholars nor had any intention to follow. When i came across to something unusual, i became curious to know more and that lead to investigation. During that, i found that my perception about that Unusualness was wrong as it was not unusual at alll, because, people are aware of all this since long and they also found some explanation of that. As time pregressed and i involved more with the issue, i became more and more convinced that, barring some minor differences, they felt and conclude in the same way as mine.

Because, either i did not put enough effort or do not have the capacity to reach that stage, which they acheived, thus, i am taking some of their cogitations as granted, assuming those true. That is why i hesitate givining my name to such a thing, which is not acheived in person completely but relies on some borrowed knowlege too.

James, it is not my impertinence but respect to those greats. To me, it is not a tecnhnical issue but a moral one. You may criticize it on technical grounds and i have accepted that too. But, i know what my intention is behind it and that is what really matters to me.

That is true as you know the most about RM because it is your brainchild.

But James, if i learn some of it from you and use it for my purpose whithout mentioning your name, then it is cheating and immoral to me, whether technically right or wrong.

with love,
sanjay

What you have provided concerning what you mean by “consciousness” has not defined it. I am beginning to suspect what it is that you are thinking, but I am pretty certain that you don’t realize what that is.

A typical definition;

Feel free to write your own definition for “consciousness” as you understand it. But the definition, to be a definition, must reveal to what the word is referring and directly imply to what it isn’t referring. Explaining what it yields (the “will”), does not explain what it is.

By the far more common definition of that word, you are referring to a living being who is aware and thinking about things.

James, these two are the closest ones, though, still not precise.
Let me try.

1 - It is not a mere concept or potential (PTA) but a hardcore reality. This means it is a form of matter for sure. Actually, this is the only reality, rest is illusion. But, its form of matter does not follow law of physics.

2 - It is eternal and time has no bearing on it. It is unchangeable too, thus, neither can be created nor destroyed.

3 - It is alive, not dead. This is to say that it conscious and aware about its existence.

4 - It has eternal power to will (of anything, if it wants). But, that is its compulsion also. It has to will or fall for it by default. We may call it the law or the Logic of both; consciousness and will. It is like default gravitation.

5 - Pure consciousness in the state of the un-entropy. This is the state without will. But, no matter how less will would be, will to exist is to remain forever. Otherwise, consciousness would become unaware of its own existence. Once manifested, will tends to multiply itself continuously.

I am not sure, but religions and scholars predict that state of total un-un-entropy (without will) too.
As soon as the will is manifested, consciousness wills to exist and came to physical form -

Let there be light.

with love,
sanjay

So ZO begins with the presumption of the layman’s / literalist’s version of the Biblical God.

It seems that we have the classical ontological distinction going on here.

RM is hard core logic, no presumptions allowed. Each step is about the lack of alternatives.
ZO is superstitiously presumed, wherein the fundamental steps are suppositions, plausible alternatives.

" will to exist " -

i.e. self-valuing.

Your assertion is utterly unsustainable, you make claims without sustaining them by logic, but it is true in this sense that, in order to affect, there must be self-valuing - i.e. resistance to nothingness.

RM describes this as the maximum rate of affectance/PtA change. It is also known as the speed of light.

A light-wave is the most rudimentary self-valuing of the observable universe - its “anentropic shell” is its mean, consistency, the axis of its motion, direction of change. The wave revolves around that axis through the most rudimentary form of time - linear progression.

Linear progression requires ‘bounce’ - self-relativity.

To what claims/assertions are you referring?

You may say so, though it is not either entirely wrong or right and stands somewhere in between.
But, i neither mind nor help it, if my version is close to what some others have been already said.
Though, i did not constructed my version keeping Biblical God in mind. It just happened later but it does not bother me either.

Agreed. That is why i appreciate it.

I cannot say so.

James, as i see it, there is not much difference between a presumption and a declared definition.

In philosophy or in an ontology, the real test comes later, at the stage of comparing predictions with realities.
Until then, all are premises, if we keep highly intellectual and complex language aside.

Yes.
But, barring the basic premise or declared definition. Because, there is no way by which philosophy can verify it at that stage.

Agreed.

But, i would like to put two more definitions forth in this context-

A superstition is imposing an imaginary entity and considering it as a fact without verifying it to complete the sequence of the logic.

So, if this imaginary entity is not taken as a fact but assumption only, then it is premise or declared definition.

Well, That is the bottom of the difference of the perception between yours and mine. This issue can be addressed in many ways.

James, once again, with due respect------

First of all, let me make it clear that my definition of the consciousness is different from the Bibical God in many ways as it is merely an aware originator and witness of the will but not any Humanized sort of God with two legs and hands as people imagine in general. Though, i accept the that divine entities exist in realty but they are not creators of the existence but managers only.

The methodology of the metaphysics is different from remaining philosophy. It is a very subtle issue, thus, cannot be constructed in one go or a straight line. It have to travel back and forth many times, as done by the past scholars in order to avoid any derailment and be as close as reality as possible.

It does not start from the premise or declared definition, but, from the observation what it has in hand. It goes deep in the observation, even beyond from what is visible to the eyes and tries to find out some facts (not premises). Then, it moves backwards to follow the trail by deducing like analytical philosophy and try to see what it can come up with. Then again, it takes that deduced cogitations as basic premises and try to construct ontology upon it. Here, any presumption or any deviation from the logic is not allowed and the ontological run should be continued up to that very stage, from where it has taken the initial observation. Now, both of ontological and observational findings have to matched exactly. If it is so, then both initial observation (basic premises) and ontology is true, otherwise not. And, once again, it has to check its observations and find out where the fault is. This is not a one time phenomena but has to be repeated again and again, unless and until, ontological constructs do not match exactly with observational findings.

James, i think that is more than clear and that is the difference between your perception and mine about the construction of a metaphysical ontology. Perhaps, it looks a bit unusual but that is more reliable way.

And, that is what i am indicating again and again in the context of RM. RM is fine and perfect but it is a merely a tool to construct an ontology, not an ontology itself. It would give you back what you would pour in it, nothing more, and nothing less. It is a formula and its result depends on where are you applying it.

It is a vehicle, not a driver, thus, the driver must be aware of the starting point and that destination. Yes, a vehicle can carry the driver successfully but someone has to drive it as it cannot run on its own. That is the crux of the issue.

James, when i am including consciousness in what is, what it is with will, then i am neither assuming it nor it is merely a declared definition, but a fact. Because, i know that it is a reality and different from will. And, any ontology cannot run successfully till the end without considering it as a basic premise.

That is why JSSRM is perfect while explaining Non-live or physical matter because that is made of pure affectance, not consciousness. But, JSSRM would run into trouble when it comes to Live-matter like humans and Spiritual entities, because, they all have a tiny part of consciousness at the center, and affectance wraps around it.

That is how that amalagmation of the two becomes alive, because now it has its own source of will and becomes Self-Valuing. That is why it struggles to survive and always ready to take on the ambient. While, Non-live matter is only reluctant to change, not self-valuing as it does not care about itself.

James, i know that sometimes people (i am not including you) see me as a hardcore superstitious theist, who use to live in his own fantasy and tends to put forth bizarre explanations, but, i am not a bigot.

I know what I know, and I also know that I do not know all, but I also know what I do not know.

This is to say that i am well aware of my capabilities and knowledge and those limitations also. My knowledge may be limited but i am sure of that.

with love.
sanjay

That seems to be an important issue that you are not grasping.

As stated before, a definition or declaration is merely assigning meaning and concept to a word. It has nothing to do with any presumption concerning reality. The presumption would come in, as you noted, if one does not verify or compare the final result of the ontology with reality and yet accepts the ontology as “the truth”.

In the case of declaring a consciousness as a fundamental element in your ontology, there is nothing wrong with declaring it. At that point, no error has been made. But at what point can you verify the final result? How do you test whether or not that consciousness is what you are seeing?

If what you see could happen in no other way at all and you can prove that by the lack of alternatives, then you can verify your ontology. But I don’t see how you could ever really do that. You might instinctively sense that reality fits the ontology, but that isn’t a “lack of alternatives” but rather merely an intuitive sense that can easily be misleading, as is often the case with many people.

Within RM:AO, each declaration leads to inescapable logic even before any comparing is to take place. Because of that, when the final result is compared, there is no choice concerning whether the declared entities exist. They must exist simply because there was no alternative in obtaining the outcome.

But in the case of RM:AO the very first declaration concerns what “existence” means. All of the logic stems from that one initial concept. Even if nothing seemed to compare with what is witnessed, RM:AO still could not be untrue (assuming logic or math errors were not made in the process). The verifying of RM:AO is really only verifying the math/logic, not the truthfulness. RM:AO is unusual in that regard.

One can say, "maybe there is this consciousness and maybe it acts like this or that and IF it did, then that would explain a lot of what I am seeing". But that is not a logical derivation. That is guessing at a seemingly possible ontology but not having any way to ever verify it.

That is what distinguishes a belief from a proof and religion from reasoning and/or Science.

For example; Is there no alternative at all for the existence of your consciousness concept? What is the logic that makes such a consciousness absolutely necessary (lack of alternatives)?

In contrast, for RM:AO, “existence” itself is defined to be “that which has affect”. Any argument to the contrary is null due to the concept of rationality. It is irrational to be concerned with or seek out that which truly has absolutely no affect upon anything. Thus it is then declared that if something is said to exist yet truly has no affect, then “I don’t care”. Nothing could ever be seen that has absolutely no affect upon anything nor could anything ever be known about it at all, thus there can never be any witness to the contrary of the declaration. And it is by that type of reasoning that the existence of Affectance has no alternative but to be true. The details as to how it behaves is a longer story.

So Affectance is neither presumed nor merely believed. There is no choice in the matter of its existence.
If there is Existence, there is Affectance.

Agreed.

James, there are two issues here. First of the proof of the existence of the consciousness at the initial stage and second of the validity of the trueness or the verification of my ontology.

As far as the validity of my ontology is concerned, i admit openly that there are still many gaps in it and there may be even some mistakes on my part while constructing it. I am not claiming that i know all. if that was the case, then why should i have been interested in RM? I even hesitate to call it ontology as i consider it merely by perception yet.

But, on the other hand, it is also true that i am not a complete ignorant either. I am aware of many such things which are not common. This is to say, though i cannot built a complete and perfect system on my own, yet i am able to judge whether any ontology is perfect or not.

Now, the first issue of the consciousness. Though, i explained you that in the last post, but, now i am trying is my (layman’s) way.

In the winter, i daily lit the fire to keep myself warm.
I see the fire daily and know that it gives some yellow and reddish light and a lot of black smoke too.

Now, i see the same light and smoke at some other place.
Though, due to the distance, i cannot see the fire, yet i am sure that there must be a fire, because the light and smoke is the same, which i have been seen already on enumerable occasions.

If anyone tells me that there is light, so it must be fire, i would not accept it because there is no sign of that smoke.
If anyone tells me that there is a smoke, so it must be fire, i would not accept it because there is no sign of that light.

James, this is how it works. Yes, i accept that it is not an inescapable logic, that is why it has to repeat many times, till the perfection. But, i have at least something to judge it. And, that is where the initial observation becomes handy. The success of the ontology depends on the quality of the first observation; as precise as the observation would be, as precise the ontology would be. Because, the is no other way to judge it.

James, i am not denying the definition of the existence as - that which has effect as it sounds reasonable, and my inclusion of consciousness does not challenge it either. But still, this definition is not complete in the sense as it focuses only on present, neither past nor future. Secondly, this does not tell you about the all entities which has the power to effect.

Let me take an example. Say, that i am seeing CNN on the tv, thus according to the definition of the existence, right now, CNN is a reality because it is affecting me. But, i was seeing BBC before that and also would watch Discovery after some time.

So, the question remains whether BBC and Discovery exist or not, while watching CNN right now?

You have rightly taken Affectance into account but what about the past and the future? What if some other entity has been already affected in the past or would also affect in the future?

James, i am ready to put the issue of the consciousness aside and accept only affectance at the initial stage, because it is not the question of ego to me as i want to win an argument over you. I am arguing because even that does not solve the problem either. Because, due to our direct and indirect conversations so far, it looks to me that JSSRM is not exactly matching the reality. I cannot deny what i experienced in person, in reality and sometimes physically too.

Once again, the onus of satisfaction is on the reasoning (ontology), not on the observation.

That is why i am trying to fill the gaps, though, not successful so far.

James, there some other arguments also, which indicate that mere affectance is not enough to manifest this universe.

Affectance is purely mechanical, fixed and not random. This is to say the does not disobey its rules, without any exception. But, this quality is not present in all existed entities. But, many entities like humans are not like that as we have the tendency to disobey rules. But, how can a mechanical system produce random behaviour?

Think of any software. Like affectance, any software consisted of merely 0 and 1, though there is no limit of its size and complexity. It can be very sophisticated and handle very difficult issues, but still, it never disobey it rules. This is to say that a software, no matter how complicated it would be, still obeys the rules of its programmer. Then, how does a human mind not follow the rules and becomes self-valuing (sorry FC)?

James, affectance is merely doing entity, not feeling (cognitive) entity. Unless and until, you would not include a cognitive entity at the initial stage, JSSRM would not able explain different Live-forms properly.

Have to reach at that stage on Jack?

with love,
sanjay

All observations are probabilistic in nature. One cannot, through observation alone know of anything with certainty… ever. Logic is required to know with certainty.

My concern earlier was your statement that you begin with observations. That cannot be. Every observation assumes a great many things merely to form the picture that you consider “an observation”. Thus RM:AO begins with logic, specifically Definitional Logic. Thus RM:AO begins with what has no choice but to be true, although being “true” at that stage is not of necessary concern. The trick is to then ensure that each logic step remains perfect so that where ever the logic leads, the same degree of absolute truth follows.

Only the present “exists” (“has affect”). The future is the present’s Effect. And the past is the present’s affector.

Their image exists, not them. What you experience, the affecting, occurs through and after time has passed (again by necessity of “affecting”).

You are never affected immediately by any affector. The amount of time that passes between the affector and the affected is what determines what we call “distance”. Physical distance is caused by the effort of light to propagate. The act of recording or documenting slows the propagation into a “particle” (something that doesn’t change much at all). Once that happens, the particle (the documentation, video recording, what ever) can continue to affect even though the original affector has passed away. The stars that you see might not exist at all anymore. You are being affected by the residual effects, “documented” merely by the time it took for their image to get to you. Their image has been stored in space via propagation, but is dissipating.

It is easy to think that chemistry doesn’t reflect reality until you come to fully understand chemistry. All complex or all encompassing ontologies will require a great deal of study before one can say that the ontology doesn’t reflect their observations. Nothing is more all encompassing than RM.

My point is that the “observation” already has presumed reasoning within it that must be humble to reconsideration. What you think that you see, might not be what you actually see. The cognitive mind can construct an ontology that can be used to verify that the subconscious’s natural ontology and reasoning was or wasn’t accurate. Many things turn out to be “counter intuitive”.

That is absolutely impossible. “This universe” and “affectance” are the same thing, merely differing in perspective. Affectance necessarily includes all physical existence, by definition. But Affectance Ontology goes beyond merely the physical universe. RM:AO also includes the “Conceptual Realm” (or mental realm, divine realm, spiritual realm, or whatever names it has been given). There can be nothing real that has been excluded. If a “consciousness” by your definition exists, it is a part of the Affectance. But it implies a complex thing and thus isn’t a part of the initial explanation that must begin with the simplest concepts possible.

“Fixed and not random”???
If you mean that it always obeys the same rules or principles, then you are right. There is no possibility of it ever being other than it is and thus doing what it does. But since the entire universe is formed by what it does, what need is there for it to be different?

Consider that they really are “obeying the rules” and it is merely your misunderstanding of those rules that makes it appear as though they aren’t. Again, your observations can trick you because they naturally presume reasoning that has not been verified.

“Random behavior” merely means behavior that you don’t know enough about to predict. The word “random” directly infers ones lack of knowledge. The universe itself can never have anything whatsoever actually disobeying exact laws/principles. But to predict behavior requires extreme knowledge of the current state. If total knowledge of the current state down to the most infinitesimal detail is know, the entire future can be exactly predicted without a single flaw. But good luck gaining such knowledge.

You are presuming that before learning of it. But you cannot prove your supposition, because it happens to not be true.

I am forever struggling with “tool” issues concerning JiB. Progress has become extremely slow. My equipment is very limited. And my brain “ain’t what it used to be”.

James,

As we narrowing down at the issue, i am finding it difficult what and how to say. Give me some time.

But, i want to ask you something if you do not mind as perhaps it would help us to understand each other better.

What is a photon?
Do you think that it is massless as modern physics says? Or not? And why?
Do you think that nothing can travel faster than the light and why?
What do you think of Higgs-Boson?
And, which is smaller between these two (HB and a Photon) and why?

Do not go in the maths as i am concerned about the concepts only.

with love,
sanjay

The word “light” gets a bit confused. Fundamentally, “radiant energy” is a better term.

A photon is a pulse of radiant energy, or “affectance”. When the pulse is higher frequency (ramp rate), it will tend to hold together and not dissipate. The higher that ramp rate, the greater is the tendency to particlize. The photon doesn’t ever become a typical mass particle only because it is already moving too fast to accumulate the spherical affectance required to become a mass particle. In effect, it is out running its potential future as a particle.

And as that ramp rate increases, the pulse displays greater similarity to a fast moving particle. As a particle, the ramp rate increases to infinity and thus is easily measured to have inertia and momentum, and can no longer propagate at “light speeds”. The speed of light is determined by the affect of attempting to change the situation (the “potential”, PtA) at an infinite rate and also travel at infinity speed. It can’t do both thus infinite propagation speed is sacrificed and a ramp rate below infinite is required. If the ramp rate were to exceed the limit produced by the infinite rate of affect (per infinitesimal point), the propagation speed would be sacrificed to even below light. The explanation for exactly why light travels at that particular speed is a bit of a long story and involves the math of infinities (or “hyperreal mathematics”), but it is entirely logic based, requiring no ontological presumptions.

A common misunderstanding is that a light photon is a pure wave. It is certainly not. It is basically a clump of EM/Affectance noise that has a trajectory and an average pulse ramp rate. Within that little bundle are spikes and peaks. Those peaks give the photon its ability to “hold together” more like a particle. But also, despite what has been commonly taught in physics, every photon has inertia and momentum (thus “mass”). In physics, they decided to distinguish between types of mass by calling one “momentum” and the other “rest mass”. Light can have no rest mass simply because it doesn’t rest. If it did, it would become a particle or a portion of an existing particle.

And each of those little spikes is made of an infinite number of these;

The “Afflate” is merely a conceptual entity similar to an ultra microscopic “clump of affectance” and in physics is referred to as a “virtual entity” (not physically discreet, just a chosen amount).

Photons have no particular size. Their average inner ramp rate determines what physical size will be established. And that ramp rate is dependent upon the ambient that the photon is flowing through and thus in a dense ambient, the size and the propagation speed reduce. That is why light bends around highly massive objects and distorts when going through mass objects such as glass.

What they are calling a Higgs Boson is merely a theorized particle presumed to exist based on the notion that “everything must have an equal and opposite”. The theory is not correct. The Higgs boson is proposed to be what “carries the gravitational force”. As you know, gravitation is no mystery force to RM:AO and it needs no “carrier”. The quantum physics ontology requires that the entire universe be formed of quantized symmetrical objects and the universe itself is a foam of Plank bubbles that magically come and go when needed.

The “Standard Model” in contemporary physics is another ontology presuming too many things for me. RM:AO needs no such presumptions and in fact, explains every one of their presumed “fundamental components” of the physical universe.

As just explained (again) to Eugene, RM:AO explains why things like these exist at all;

Any ontology concerning physics needs to have a good explanation for those things, not merely presume their necessary presence. But interestingly, every one of those has psychological, sociological, and economic analogies. By explaining the simplest form, the physics, the other fields immediately acquire an ontology suited for them as well.

How would VO or ZO explain that list of things without merely presuming their existence? RM:AO doesn’t presume any of them to be existing so as to show how it is, or “why”, they must always exist. The concept of “consciousness” involves sub-components such as memory, separation between the awareness and what it is aware of, speed of interaction (“speed of thought”), resultant effects (“will”), and algorithmic processes. Each of those sub-components requires an explanation concerning it individually.

Classical physics was closer to being a truly complete ontology than quantum physics but merely couldn’t figure out why quantumizing took place.

RM:AO is the Pontiff between Classical physics and Quantum physics.

Sorry James,

Out of station since two days.

With love,
sanjay

That’s okay, Sanjay. Don’t make potential stress promises. Just do what you can when you can. No pressure.

On the matter of relations, and how that concept divides RM from VO without either of the two invalidating the other.

The key is in the difference between the ultimate consequences of on the one hand the subjective concept of value and on the other the objective concept of affect.

Like an atomic core and an electron ring, the truth itself is not thinkable without a dual measurement. One can only “feel” the truth as one now and then, but this involves the whole being rather than only a rational conclusion.

As above, so below: As with concepts, so with objects.

Relations are a priori dual, triple, => , not merely after the fact of measuring them. The relations we measure in physics and chemistry do not only exist in terms of force.
There is also another aspect, and this is unmeasurable in exact terms, as it involves not just the present state but its entire history and future of affect in every possible universe in which it could exist.

Even the very idea of a particle is cleaved. There are always two ways of contemplating the object. For example:

• The minimal and maximal requirements for its existence, its ‘essence’, raw (unmeasured) content. ⇔ Its maximal power to affect (a quantity of force).

• The possible ways in which it can affect and be affected (a number of qualities in various quantities). ⇔ Its measurable effect. (its measurable activity at a given moment).

These cross relate into two four further dualities, of which two are simple and two quite a bit less so. More on these later. In the above, the second part of each pair is expressed in terms of something outside of itself. The first part expresses all that it can possibly be, i.e. all possible contexts for it to exist in. The second is a process of valuing and counter valuing, the second part is translatable in common sensical speak only via such words as (value-) standard and consistency.

In the case of the latter it is very difficult to distinguish action from passive existing. Something “just exists” only to the measure that it is active. Even if this activity may be wholly enforced by the ambient history, it does act itself in a particular way that can only be affected by the ambient indirectly. Thus it is an integer being, essentially independent, yet requiring for this independence something to be independent from.

And such arrays of standards arrange themselves alongside those standards to which they may favorably compare. I.e. each thing seeks (gradually falls into) the context in which the most is required of its essential potential.

In human lore this is called Good versus Evil, but it is the inevitable form of time, the progression of increasing density on the one hand, and slowing relative time on the other.

The end scenario is one of complete stability and zero progression of time. Time would then ‘freeze’, undoubtably for it to burst open in a new Big Bang (or Crash - as in a pulverizing sheet of glass).

I think You are on the right track, and your expressing a pre existing duality although a contradiction of terms, it implies a sort of collapsed state of that duality into the unitary. The unitary
Is what becomes Kant’s synthetic a priori, by definition. But the duplicity is somehow inherent or embedded in the unity.

In other words, consciousness is embedded in the consciousness for(the perceived object.

This later is defined as the in itself and the for itself , respectively.

I suspect that VO is referring to the value of a banana while I am referring to the subatomic physics of the molecules within that same banana.

But let’s start “at the beginning”.

Let’s say that there is point that has the potential to affect another point merely in the way of altering the other’s ability to affect anything else. Point A has to ability to cause point B to have more affect on perhaps point C.

Without anything else involved, how fast would that affect from A to B occur?

Void of anything to slow it down, it would have to occur infinitely fast. But interestingly, not instantaneously. Any changing that A imposes on B must occur in a series of changes from a lower level to a higher level. There is always an in between. There are, in effect, an infinite number of changes occurring in order to alter point B from any level to any other level.

But point B cannot be both at a low level and a high level at the exact same moment as the notion of “instantaneous” would suggest. It is of logical necessity that the entire series from low to high occur in sequence and thus there must be a time when point B is not yet as high as it is going to become.

So let’s say that A does go ahead and raise point B’s potential up to a higher level, give it a value of “10”. And that it got to that level by going through levels 1 through 10 progressively at an infinite speed. Now we have point B with a potential value of 10, but not at the exact same moment as when it was at level 1, or 2, or 3.

Point B can now affect a point C in a similar manner. And again, point C must progress from it’s lower value up to its higher value and since point B was given the ability to change point C up to the level 10, shortly after B got up to 10, C would get up to 10.

Between any two points in space, there are conceptually an infinite number of such points and any propagation of affect must traverse each of the infinite number of points in sequence. So we have a case where a small change is occurring at an infinite speed but must make that same change an infinite number of times. The end result calculates to be merely “a constant” of unknown value, but certainly not infinite.

So what we have is the unavoidable logic that states any affect cannot ever propagate at an infinite (certainly not instantaneous) rate. And that must be true regardless of there not being anything at all slowing it down… no “resistance” other than logic itself. This is known as “the speed of light” (even though that isn’t really the best terminology for it).

Now, in terms of VO, what is the valuer and the value? And how does the propagation play into the ontology?

This is one of many reasons why I have no respect for RM.

FC, I have another question for VO.

I do not expect you to reply straight away, nor would I want you to reply without the utmost sincerity and prior thought:

does reality precede value?