RM AND VO

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:36 am

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;
con•scious•ness (ˈkɒn ʃəs nɪs)

n.
1. the state of being conscious; awareness.
2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people.
3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness.
4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5. concern, interest, or awareness: class consciousness.
6. the mental activity of which a person is aware, contrasted with unconscious thought.
7. Philos. the mind or the mental faculties, characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.
con•scious (ˈkɒn ʃəs)

adj.
1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. fully aware of something: not conscious of the passage of time.
3. having the mental faculties fully active: to be conscious during an operation.
4. known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt.
5. aware of what one is doing.
6. aware of oneself; self-conscious.
7. deliberate; intentional: a conscious effort.
8. acutely aware of or concerned about: money-conscious.


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.
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: RM AND VO

Postby zinnat » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:14 am

James S Saint wrote:living being who is aware and thinking about things

James S Saint wrote:the state of being conscious; awareness.


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
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:55 pm

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.
James S Saint wrote:A "superstition" is created by super imposing an invisible entity so as to stitch an observation into a semblance of logic.
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: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:35 pm

" 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.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:40 pm

Jakob wrote:" 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.

To what claims/assertions are you referring?
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: RM AND VO

Postby zinnat » Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:18 pm

James S Saint wrote:So ZO begins with the presumption of the layman's / literalist's version of the Biblical God.


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.

James S Saint wrote:RM is hard core logic,


Agreed. That is why i appreciate it.

James S Saint wrote:no presumptions allowed


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.

James S Saint wrote:Each step is about the lack of alternatives


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

James S Saint wrote:A "superstition" is created by super imposing an invisible entity so as to stitch an observation into a semblance of logic.


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.

James S Saint wrote:ZO is superstitiously presumed, wherein the fundamental steps are suppositions, plausible alternatives.


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
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:01 pm

zinnat13 wrote: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.

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.
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: RM AND VO

Postby zinnat » Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:31 pm

James S Saint wrote: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".


Agreed.

James S Saint wrote: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.


James S Saint wrote: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)?


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; [u]as precise as the observation would be, as precise the ontology would be. Because, the is no other way to judge it[/u].

James S Saint wrote: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.


James S Saint wrote: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.


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
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:19 am

zinnat13 wrote: 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; [u]as precise as the observation would be, as precise the ontology would be. Because, the is no other way to judge it[/u].

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.

zinnat13 wrote: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.

Only the present "exists" ("has affect"). The future is the present's Effect. And the past is the present's affector.

zinnat13 wrote: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?

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.

zinnat13 wrote: 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.

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.

zinnat13 wrote: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.

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".

zinnat13 wrote:James, there some other arguments also, which indicate that mere affectance is not enough to manifest this universe.

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.

zinnat13 wrote:Affectance is purely mechanical, fixed and not random.

"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?

zinnat13 wrote: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?

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. 8)

zinnat13 wrote: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.

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

zinnat13 wrote:Have to reach at that stage on Jack?

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". :-?
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: RM AND VO

Postby zinnat » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:09 am

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
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:38 am

zinnat13 wrote: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?

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.

Image

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

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).


zinnat13 wrote:What do you think of Higgs-Boson?
And, which is smaller between these two (HB and a Photon) and why?

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.
In the Standard Model of particle physics, the fundamental forces known to science arise from laws of nature called symmetries, and are transmitted by particles known as gauge bosons. The symmetry governing the weak force is expected to lead to gauge bosons with zero mass, but experiments actually showed the weak force to have very massive and short-ranging gauge bosons (now called W and Z bosons).[Note 3] Their very short range – a result of their mass – makes structures like atoms and stars possible, but explaining their unexpected mass posed an exceedingly difficult problem.


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;
  • 1- Nuclear fission
  • 2- Nuclear fusion
  • 3- Strong force
  • 4- Weak force
  • 5- Electromagnetic force
  • 6- Gravitational force
  • 7- Quantization of particles
  • 8- Origin of the universe
  • 9- Valence bonding
  • 10- Inertia
  • 11- Momentum
  • 12- Dark energy
  • 13- Dark matter
  • 14- Propagation Speed of Light


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.
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: RM AND VO

Postby zinnat » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:11 pm

Sorry James,

Out of station since two days.

With love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Tue Jul 30, 2013 2:56 pm

That's okay, Sanjay. Don't make potential stress promises. Just do what you can when you can. No pressure.
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: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:49 pm

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).
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Orbie » Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:47 pm

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.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:11 pm

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?
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: RM AND VO

Postby Silhouette » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:27 pm

James S Saint wrote: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.

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?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3426
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:02 pm

Silhouette wrote:does reality precede value?

To make it easier for us to communicate, I'd ask you to define "reality".

That's what I've tried to do with VO.

The conclusion is that standard/value (as I've called self-valuing) logically precedes value - i.e. it comes first in the argument.

VO is a logical method of defining reality and its build-up, its process of evolution.

Reality is "what is real". "Real" is a subjective value-judgment, be it a very fundamental one.

What is required for such a judgement? That there is something that "engages reality" - i.e. a resistance.

This is where VO goes 'deeper' than RM - RM states bits of Potential to Affect - VO defines those bits in terms that translate in their potential.

Within the VO logic (and it is just a logical method to describe reality, not reality itself nor the only way of describing it), for reality to precede value would mean that reality precedes itself.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:08 pm

Another question for you, S -
Does the term 'reality' refer to an objective or a subjective judgment?

Can we speak of reality without referring to subjective terms?
If so, how?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:49 pm

James S Saint wrote: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.

..and getting more convinced.

James S Saint wrote:But let's start "at the beginning"....
.
.
Now, in terms of VO, what is the valuer and the value in that scenario? And how does the propagation play into the ontology?
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: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:44 pm

James S Saint wrote:
James S Saint wrote: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.

..and getting more convinced.

Well, value ontology refers to both the banana and the subatomic particles. And the atomic particles. And the guy who eats the banana. And the stomach-function of the banana.
Does RM refer only to the subatomic particle?

James S Saint wrote:But let's start "at the beginning"....
.
.
Now, in terms of VO, what is the valuer and the value in that scenario? And how does the propagation play into the ontology?

All are valuer and valued. Their existence is a conflict between being valued and valuing. Trillions of slight differences and gazillions of permutations per moment, we are at war with ourselves, and RM is like a nuclear weapon. VO is like a life-boat.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:46 pm

"And the stomach-function of the banana."

I mean -
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:04 pm

Take the word "human" as figuratively as you possibly can. Take some drugs if you nee to, but get there.

VO refers to man and from man to the molecule. From the molecule to the atom. From the atom the currents of affect (I adopted affectance from RM) and within the currents of affect it recognizes the human. A shared property is met.

RM refers from the "human" at absolute near zero level, the 'infinitesimal bit of PtA'.
VO recognizes this bit as equal to a human in the essential property of not being nothing - i.e. immediately transient: resistance.

Resistance is the most complicated factor in the calculation, as it is purely conditional, contingent and circumstantial. No? Thus it merits to set out a perimeter for predictions and power-moves, a sphere wherein one can be certain that calculations will be correct.

in VO, this perimeter is huge. That is because the terms are general. But amazingly, they are clear. VO does require all of the other sciences. Its terminology is not separate from mathematics or social-dramatic performance management, english french or sign-language. It's also not a claim on the world. It's the science of claims on the world.

The whole of our social affect is the heat of resistance and movement, so conditioned that it is terrible, no knowledge is available except the punishing data of crude collisions. Science works this way. The unfortunate aspect of science is that it leaves us indifferent to subjective truth (such as superstitions, magical family ancestry, people with superpowers, ghosts and spirits, personal energies ), But that means it also leaves little room for remorse, for projecting inward of responsibility, for self-study. Scientific selfstudy works in types, the body is analyzed in terms of a magnified square, so to speak. It is not 'made' to do good to the one who wields it. It is meant to do it but that is the problem. It does not "emerge".

In RM atoms emerge out of a code, which is built on a standard.
VO is that standards study. It is in effect deeper than RM, thus wider in terms of predictions but not nearly as exact in its electronic power.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:11 pm

So in affect i say: fine - let them have their science. I am not going to be watching over a nuclear arsenal. Let some maniacs do that, they can be relied on to always make the same manic decisions. No sane person is that predictable.

They're like supertoxic particles who keep the supertoxic weapons from the normal guys.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:13 pm

Just fund them less.


Silhouette wrote:does reality precede value?

Does it to you?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users