Particles

MechanicalMonster · October 30, 2013, 2:04am

How do “photons” initially get trapped so as to become “particles”?

James_S_Saint · October 30, 2013, 9:13am

What do you mean by “initially get trapped”?

MechanicalMonster · October 30, 2013, 3:17pm

I don’t know, I’m trying to explore ideas for what particles are and how-why they even form in the first place. We know that colliding particles will produce light (EM radiation) and more subatomic particles, so it seems possible that these particles are just composed of “photons”, minimal EM configurations. A “free” photon travels in a straight line at c in a vacuum, and we know it speeds up and slows down based on the medium through which it travels, so its velocity is not a function of anything external but of itself, else how could it “speed up” again after slowing down? But if that energy were confined into a very small space somehow, then we get what appears and acts like a particle, a little “point” or mass of energy with space-time consequences due to its finite dimensions and how it interacts with other particles.

So I look at it like varying configurations of EM, with certain spacetime properties and consequences. The photon collapses time in order to extend maximally in space, and thus having collapsed time it achieves “absolute speed” or self-induced velocity, it “is its velocity” in a sense. But adding time back into the equation forces space to constrict too, we get “material” or what we call particles… consequences of this would be charge (relative polarities, forced “distance” (reference-frame acceleration)), spin (angular momentum?), and gravity (“mass”).

Or maybe we should just start at the beginning… in your knowledge, what is a particle?

James_S_Saint · October 30, 2013, 8:05pm

In the beginning…

The following is Why all existence is what it is;

It is the reason, logic, and mathematics concerning why all things are what they are and do what they do.
It is Why existence has;
Light
Light at that particular speed, “c”.
Fields (gravitational and electromagnetic)
Inertia
Mass
Momentum
Photons
Mono- and polyparticles
Forces (EM, Gravitational, Strong, and Weak)
Polarity
Atoms
Molecules
Bodies
Perception
Consciousness
Hopes and Threats (Values)
Life
Religions
Societies
Governments
Economies
.
.
.

That equation is; THE Cause of all things, the “Unified Field Theory”, the “Grand Unified Theory”, “THE God” in mathematical terms.

If you were to emulate that one equation, preferably in an analog computer because the equation cannot be quantized or digitized without sacrificing accuracy and consuming a horrendous amount of time and memory, into a huge spherical matrix, a meta-universe would immediately form containing everything that any universe could ever have within it, that entire list above and more, although much, much, much slower. And all because there is no alternative. It is what it is and it is what it must be. The universe IS an infinitely large, infinitely dense analog computer that is currently processing at an infinite speed.

Did you really want to start “at the beginning”?

James_S_Saint · October 30, 2013, 9:05pm

Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology - The Equation for Space
Rational Metaphysics, RM:AO, is an ontology for physics formed without the presumptions inherent in the Science of physics and is introduced here… Rational Metaphysics.

Within RM:AO is an equation that mathematically describes any portion of space, regardless of what is in that space. Anything within that space merely alters a few parameters without change in the equation itself. And of course a part of that equation is time.

The time variable in the equation allows for both post- and predictions throughout all time. In effect, it allows for someone to predict the exact state of that space and whatever might have been in it throughout the past or future. Or it can be used to calculate what state the space had to have been in prior such as to get to the state it is in.

Of course there are inherent problems. Knowing the truly exact state of any bit of space is all but impossible so trying to simulate any real space would inherently erroneously predict due to improper initialization. Whatever its first given state is, it could never be truly and totally representative of any particular portion of real space. But sometimes close enough, is close enough for the need.

Also amongst the problems is the fact that space is actually infinite in all directions (despite theories and fantasies to the contrary) and thus there is no actual boundary. And because there is no actual boundary in real space, there are affects stemming from outside the given portion under study that will affect the actual future state. Without including the entire universe, trying to calculate the future for any one portion is limited.

Another problem is that to truly represent all of any significantly large space (anything greater in size than a pea) a horrendously large computer would have to hold all of the parameters.

But such limitations do not make the equation entirely useless. When investigating particle reactions, one need not build a multi-billion dollar particle collider, a multi-thousand dollar computer can do the job setting in someone’s office. And the good thing is that it is likely to be even more accurate than the collider without all of the potential dangers of blowing up the user or the world.

But let’s say that such an equation was advanced to the point where it became practical to truly represent all of the activity on Earth with a high degree of accuracy, every atom, every blade of grass, every human endeavor. What do you suppose would happen then?

With such a system, one could predict the consequences of any and every proposed change in laws or environment. One could get creative and predict the probable outcome of many proposed changes in environment, politics, social science, religion, or simple moving of these people from point A to point B. And all without having to go kill anyone to get it done. Danger would be minimized. Well, except for that one.

Man, throughout his history has constantly sought to be a god. Not merely a god, but THE GOD in absolute control of all things throughout the world and even the universe. There are a variety of reasons that keeps such a thing on his limited mind and heart, but there is no question that anything allowing him to become more of a true prophet, is something he would kill anyone and everyone to get his hands on. And with such a computer, he would have such a thing.

With a large enough computer and the Equation of Space, anything that is possible to be accomplished could be designed in serious detail. Any invention imaginable that was actually doable could be designed to a tee. Any and every cure for any illness could be fully designed along with the required means to deliver it. Of course, also any and every potential disease could also be designed. Every type of religion could be designed, every type of governance as well. Whoever had such a computer could answer any and every whim whether for good or bad.

So what would you do with such a device if it was in your hands? What goal would you seek for the human race?

Realize that what I have formed in RM:AO, was already formed in perhaps a more crude way back in the 1950’s. Of course there have always been crude forms throughout history. And by being close to right without being exactly right, the more powerfully dangerous people get. So today, as such endeavors get closer and closer to being “close enough”, the threat to all humanity increases greatly depending on the sanity of the people running the program and making the choices as to what future will be constructed.

Many stories and films have been made with such a thought in mind. Many worries and many hopes have been dreamt. Television shows such as Dr. Who explores in fanciful form the types of concerns that are revealed by being able to see (or “travel”) into the past and future, “do this, and lets see what comes of what you just did”.

What I find most disturbing is not the potential power of such a device in the hands of the wrong people, but rather that there seems to be no “right people” who actually have a sane idea concerning what the future “should be”, what goal to design toward.

With a great deal of experience toying with such a device without actually implementing the proposed changes in the world, the lusts for power gets quailed into a far more moderate understanding, less passion and more compassion. The final question of “why bother to do anything” gets answered without passion presumptions or primitive yearnings. But how do you stop the lust to implement “close enough” before the more favorable designs have been explored?

Given the chance, the rationality in RM:AO settles into the soul to allow the noise of lustful passions for control and domination to calm and fade. Man then has to decide for what purpose he is to actually do anything for sake of the future. His mind and heart becomes clear of his presumptions. The “Sin” within Man himself fades.

I said that the Equation for Space has already been developed in crude form and by some very influential people. But how do I know it is in “crude” form? I know by comparison of the fruit of such a “tree of knowledge”. What I see is exemplary of the “close enough” equation in the lustful wrong hands. What I see is insidious manipulation where none was needed, death, misery, and destruction where none was needed.

The RM:AO model does not inspire to seek total domination of all reality. It displays the consequences of such attempts to be disastrous and eventually futile. It shows a more sane way of achieving sanity among homosapian; less death, misery, and destruction of what humanity is, more freedom and less struggle for all concerned.

A man once asked, “what do you do with 300 million insane people?” I now must ask, “what do you do with 6.5 billion of them?” Let them see the futures they propose? Will that bring sanity among them? Will that inspire true rationality in Man for perhaps the first time? “Close enough” is going to make him extinct. That part is already foreseeable.

MechanicalMonster · October 31, 2013, 5:25am

I’m really interested in your equation. What does delta represent here?

James_S_Saint · October 31, 2013, 5:59am

It is the more formal lettering for “d” in mathematics, as in the more common “dt” or “dx”, indicating an infinitesimal change.

The equation is conceptually pretty simple, until you get into all of the combinations of what it creates. The equation is merely saying that at each point in space, there is a potential to affect, “PtA”, and the changing of the potential and the changing of that changing, and the changing of the changing of the changing, and… ad infinitum.

But inherent in any such infinite series is the fact that any additional change must require time (time being merely a measure of change) and the more changing, the more time. That means that if very much change is demanded, that changing is delayed. There is no resistive element involved, merely the logic of trying to add change to what is already changing infinitely fast.

A particle is one of the results of such changing. A particle is merely a clump of changing that delays any effort to change the amount of changing that is already taking place in that small region and thus every particle has inherent “inertia”, the resistance to change. A particle is a literal traffic jam that cannot clear away because the cars keep coming in just as fast as they can get out. That is what determines the particle “quantized” size and is set by the density of the changing in the ambient field, “space around it”.

Within the particle (that actually has no finite periphery), the density of the changing exponentially increases toward the center where the PtA is attempting to accomplish infinite potential in zero time, without ever succeeding, but without ever giving up.

The reason that no “mass particle” can move at the speed of light is simply because it would require that every spec within it be moving in a single direction. If that were to happen (which it can’t) the particle would actually be a photon, not a “mass particle”. A photon is merely a clump of affectance that happens to almost entirely be moving in the same direction.

MechanicalMonster · November 1, 2013, 3:15am

That’s actually really cool.

Have you demonstrated anything empirical with this yet? The limit of my understanding here is that it is hard for me to see how all factors could ever be accounted for, thus as you say actual physical modeling is near impossible, except for approximations. I’m interested in the approximations you’ve created based on this, I need more concrete examples I suppose to really grasp it.

On the PtA and the changing of PtA, and the changing of that change, ad infinitum, I can see how this would regress minimally through various situationally-bound thresholds into a kind of chaos-flux of tiny potentials and changes, leading as you show to the “formation” of a “particle”. But what set all this in motion anyway? And why-how is light, “photons”, so special?

Masslessness produces c velocity, I get that I think. How does gravity come from massness? Or, what even is gravity? I want to know concretely in real, physical terms what the forces are and how-why they are that way.

Stuart · November 1, 2013, 4:02am

I don’t know how you can keep up with James on these topics. Math has always fascinated me… it seems to be just another form of language, subject to the same limitations. But, alas, I was always one more oriented towards the simpler subjects.

James_S_Saint · November 1, 2013, 8:55am

That is a long story.

Welcome to the world of Lorentz, Maxwell, Heisenberg, Einstein, Bohr,…
… all greater geniuses than me. I was just a little late getting to Copenhagen (by a few decades… emm… “retarded”, you might say), “…horse threw a shoe”, “.…for want of a nail” and all. I just happen to know something that they didn’t back then.
I’m the nail.
So I nailed it… “RM:AO”.
The question now is whether there is anyone left bright enough to get back on the horse.

Physicists are up in a ship bouncing sound waves and radar off of the ocean floor in an attempt to understand the Earth. Rational Metaphysics is at the core of the entire Earth, looking up wondering what all of the noise is about. I am not a physicist, rather a meta-physicist (the logic behind the ontology called “physics”). We design the tools they attempt to use to understanding their world. My contribution is RM:AO, more specifically “Affectance” as the defining characteristic of existence itself and defined by that equation, as well as the methodology called “Rational Metaphysics” that anyone can use to create a knowingly truthful ontology (definitionally absolute due to Definitional Logic).

But there is a huge mountain of understanding just to get from the core up to the smallest entity that a physicist will ever be able to see using any tool other than his mind and emulators (such as Jack). RM isn’t a mere “college course”, but rather an entire college curriculum and mental discipline. It is what forms the temples and tools of the religions and sciences.

So rekindle the fire atop Mount Sinai, call the intelligent chimps out of their dungeons, do the whole Copenhagen thing all over again and the New World Order will take a new shape, nothing like what you are seeing taking place now and nothing like anything that has been seen before. Although I can tell you the basic structural form, I cannot tell you what it “looks like” because it automatically takes it’s own direction as it forms based upon sentience throughout all levels of life from the lowest to the highest, “Anentropia”.

The Real “Apocalypse” has yet to come (watch the Prophecy trilogy with your mind on metaphor).

There are a variety of ways of explaining all of that, just an easy couple;

RM merely has the advantage of being unavoidably true (even if other ontologies are also true).

It is unavoidable that every point in space has the potential for affect. If it could have no such potential, it wouldn’t be a point in space. Nothing could pass into or out of it. It would be a permanent discontinuity in the universe.

It is unavoidable that such points have different potentials to affect already within them.
It is unavoidable that each of those points actualizes to affect/alter the potential values in their adjacent points.
It is unavoidable that such changing can never stabilize into equilibrium.
It is unavoidable that such changing has a maximum rate of changing that necessitates delays in the motion of the changing.

It is unavoidable that such delays create a congestion of surrounding delays (mass).
It is unavoidable that such congestion is comparatively immobile (inertia) and migratory.
It is unavoidable that such congestion centers migrate toward each other (gravity).
It is unavoidable that once set in motion such congestion will continue in motion (momentum).

1.) Existence is defined by the property of affect.
2.) Affect can only derive from potential to affect (to change) a separate or distinguished affect.
3.) The probability of infinite similarity vs the slightest dissimilarity is 0.000… or “0+”.
4.) Due to the above, in almost all adjacent locations, the potential for affect cannot be infinitely identical.
5.) Because the potential to affect is not identical almost anywhere, actualization of affect takes place.
6.) As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate spuriously in both direction and magnitude.
7.) When propagating waves of affect overlap, they add.
8.) The rate of adding affects cannot be instantaneous, else there would be infinite homogeneity of affect.
9.) Due to that maximum rate of adding affects, any additional propagating affect that comes along must wait for a bit.
10) By the waiting causing more waiting, a slowness in propagation in the general area forms.
11.) Any maximum accumulation that is not continually supported disseminates.
12.) When affects add to more than a maximum, part of those affects continues to attempt adding while the extra portion delays - “Inertia”.

13.) When a clump of noise is large enough, the relative surface of the clump is supported only by affectance leaving the volume at an equal rate as entering it – “Entropic Shell” forming a stable Particle – a “standing wave” of noise.

14.) When the ambient affectance density of a particle increases, the particle cannot disseminate at the same rate as it is accumulating, so the particle grows.

This needs to be one of the revelations to Science because they have always assumed that each particle has a fixed size and mass, so their equations are often slightly off. A high-energy situation will cause the particles involved to have slightly greater mass and volume than those same particles in a lower energy situation. There is no alternative to this fact.

15.) If the ambient affectance noise is denser on one side of a particle than the opposite, the center of the clump of noise shifts toward the more dense affectance field. The “particle” moves or relocates.

16.) When the center of the noise shifts, the front of the particle becomes more dense, absorbing more ambient affectance and allowing less dissemination.

17.) When the center of the noise shifts, the back of the particle becomes less dense accumulating less ambient affectance and allowing more dissemination.

18.) Because the affectance could not escape from the front but only from the back, the remaining affectance within the particle is more greatly the affectance that was headed in the direction that the particle itself was headed.

19.) Because the affectance within the clump of noise has more affectance heading in the direction of the particle, the particle continues heading in that direction even if the ambient affectance is returned to an even ambiance – “Momentum”.

20.) Because each particle is concentrating affectance thus creating a higher density field surrounding it, particles migrate toward each other while gaining momentum – “Gravity”.

The logic and mathematics can go as deep as required, literally to the limits of the infinities.

Emm… it is more like the velocity c produces mass.

Gravity and mass are actually the same thing. A mass is merely a concentration of the “mass field” or “gravity field”, a “particle”. In RM:AO, it is more precisely defined as the field of “Affectance” (the one field that aberrantly causes all others).

The “forces” don’t actually exist other than as an aberrant effect of migration. Every particle is aggregating and disseminating ultra minuscule “wavelets” of affectance (basically in physic’s terms, ultra small random EMR waves). if for any reason, a particle acquires more affectance from one side than the opposite, it relocates its center “of mass”, “the crowd (the particle) shifted due to more people coming from the East as others left for the West”. That is a “migration”.

That migration can occur for a variety of reasons. If the affectance field is greater on one side (a “gravity field”/“mass field” gradient) due to a higher concentration off to that side, the particle migrates toward that concentration (the other “mass particle”), hence “gravitation”. Or more commonly, if the ambient affectance (the changing PtA) is more greatly positive or negative changing on one side than the opposite and the particle is also formed of the positive (increasing PtA) or negative (decreasing PtA) affectance, the particle will migrate even more quickly either toward or away from the affectance gradient simply by a natural “wavelet filtering” process that causes the particle to hold onto it’s own type of affectance far more than its opposite type (what FC calls “value filtering”). That is what the physicist is calling “charge attraction or repulsion” and “polarity of electric charge”.

The reason that Affectance exists is simply because it is impossible for it not to exist. There is no logical alternative that yields the lack of affectance. Affectance absolutely must exist in any and all “real” universes proposed. If “A is A”, then Affectance is everywhere and determining all things, “affecting”. Affectance IS all things, merely uncategorized by the humans until they “see” something “moving” (a center of distortion/concentration/density) in the field and give that kind of discerned “object” a name such as; “light”, “electron”, “atom”…

gib · November 1, 2013, 2:52pm

While I’ll let James enlighten you about his RM, I’m going to try to address your questions from a more mainstream angle. I’ll fall back on what I understand from mainstream physics:

Typically, when we observe photons being emitting due to a particle collision, this just means that the particles in question lost some energy. Photons get obsorbed and emitted by charged particles. When they are obsorbed, they become the kinetic energy of the particle. When they are emitted, the particle loses that energy. You can think of it as a driver in a car. The driver is the photon, and when in the car, causes the car to move. But when that car crashes into another car, if the driver isn’t wearing a seatbelt (and I don’t think photons have seatbelts), he gets launched through the windshield and goes on a trajectory through space. Minus the size and the blood, you get photons and charged particles.

Now it’s true that some particle collisions result in the creation of new particles that simply weren’t there before, or perhaps the transformation of the particles into different kinds, but I’m not sure if any experiments exist on record that show particles colliding to become photons as opposed to simply relinquishing their photons.

No, it travels as a wave in all directions. It’s more like an expanding sphere.

If my understanding of physics is correct, light never actually travels slower than c. It’s just that in substance, photons get obsorbed and emitted by the particles therein. It’s like the difference between a ball being thrown through empty air and a ball being thrown through a crowd of people. It doesn’t “slow down” in the crowd; it’s just that people keep catching it and passing it along. It takes longer to get through the crowd because of the series of pauses it must take while being “harbored” by the people.

I believe this is correct, but this is the behavior of any particle–electrons, quarks, etc.–the difference between photons (or any force carrying particle) and “matter” particles is that the latter–electrons, protons, and neutrons specifically–have a special kind of relation with each other: electrons and protons tend to attract each other and thereby bind each other together in a tight little system (thus you get hydrogen atoms). Then neutrons come along and form a similar kind of “attraction” relation with protons in the nucleus of the atom. But on their own, electrons, protons, and neutrons would travel through space as a wave just as photons do. The fact that they have this mutual binding affect on each other can be considered the confining to a very small space that you described.

Not sure what exactly you mean by this but I think you’re right. Light travels at c. Though not infinit from an observers point of view, c would be experienced as infinit (or rather the journey would be experienced as instant) from the photon’s point of view. This is all based on Einstein’s relativism and time dilation and length contraction and all that.

This may be true (depending on what you mean) but I don’t think photons can “slow down”. Physicists say that photons are massless and I don’t recall any experiments that show that photons can gain mass in any way.

James_S_Saint · November 2, 2013, 5:07am

MM, there is another thought that few people seem to realize even though it doesn’t take any fancy metaphysics or knowledge of physics.

The only light that you see is the light that is traveling directly into your eye. But no matter where you stood in the vast space between the stars, you would see light from those stars. And of course, the light doesn’t show up there merely because you were standing there. So even though that vast space appears totally empty, it is obviously an ocean of photons (at least).

The entire universe is immersed in an ocean of motion. And it doesn’t take any sophisticated math, physics, or metaphysics to figure that out.

gib · November 2, 2013, 5:40am

James,

I just read through the whole of this thread.

While I can’t say I completely understand RM, it is an inspiration. I especially like this quote of yours:

I’d like to understand RM more thoroughly. Can we start from something very basic?

James_S_Saint · November 2, 2013, 6:09am

I don’t know if MM wants that on this thread. RM is about how to build an absolutely certain ontology (not merely about particle metaphysics).

I think the first thing to learn concerning RM is that it is a method (as stated above). And the “nail” that it uses to ensure an immutable product is Definitional Logic.

“Using Definitional Logic is a means of absolutely knowing that ones conclusions are beyond doubt.”

And then the specific ontology first derived (Affectance Ontology) involves the very definition of existence; ref: Existence Meaningfully Defined.

"[i]It seems pointless to argue over what might exist if we do not have a clear understanding of what it really means to exist;

Existence == A set of entities which share the property of mutual affect or potential to cause change; a realm of mutual affectance.[/i]"

From there follows the logic involved in “affect upon affect”, the “substance of existence”. It is hard to get into that and avoid the mathematics of the cardinalities of infinity, so I usually skip over that part online unless someone insists.

The “affect upon affect” issue leads directly into the mathematics of the speed of light or why it is that light even has a speed. Then from there, that speed and the reason for it leads into why it is that inertia exists at all and then why particles form. The particles have no choice other than to come as one of three types; positive, negative, or neutral. And their behavior is all predictable even if no one had ever seen one empirically.

Actually, I am better at answering questions rather than giving lectures (especially online). So whatcha wanna no?

gib · November 2, 2013, 4:33pm

Yes he does:

James S Saint:

I think the first thing to learn concerning RM is that it is a method (as stated above). And the “nail” that it uses to ensure an immutable product is Definitional Logic.
"Using Definitional Logic is a means of absolutely knowing that ones conclusions are beyond doubt."

Is this just analyticity?

James S Saint:

And then the specific ontology first derived (Affectance Ontology) involves the very definition of existence; ref: Existence Meaningfully Defined.
"It seems pointless to argue over what might exist if we do not have a clear understanding of what it really means to exist;

Existence == A set of entities which share the property of mutual affect or potential to cause change; a realm of mutual affectance."

A couple questions about this:

In the link you provided, you talk mainly about how things affect the senses, but can I presume you mean “affect” in a much broader sense–as in anything affecting anything else in any way?
You’re probably right about the nature of existence being that anything therein has the potential to (or always does?) affect anything else therein, but is this really what we mean by existence or just a fact about it (or are you proposing your own definition)? I mean, I can imagine a pre-Newtonian universe (before the discovery of universal gravitation) in which two objects are separated by some distance in space and have absolutely no affect on each other. Now it may be counterfactual to say this can really happen, but seeing as I can imagine it and have no problem with the concept of both objects existing, I think we must conclude that affect need not be involved in the meaning of “existence”.

James S Saint:

From there follows the logic involved in “affect upon affect”, the “substance of existence”. It is hard to get into that and avoid the mathematics of the cardinalities of infinity, so I usually skip over that part online unless someone insists.

The “affect upon affect” issue leads directly into the mathematics of the speed of light or why it is that light even has a speed. Then from there, that speed and the reason for it leads into why it is that inertia exists at all and then why particles form. The particles have no choice other than to come as one of three types; positive, negative, or neutral. And their behavior is all predictable even if no one had ever seen one empirically.

Actually, I am better at answering questions rather than giving lectures (especially online). So whatcha wanna no?

Sounds interesting but let’s start with my questions above (please and thank you).

James_S_Saint · November 2, 2013, 5:42pm

Well, thank you for your interest. The subject is vast, so please guide this with your interest as much as possible, else it can go into extreme depth concerning things that might seem terribly boring and irrelevant even though in reality everything about it is related to everything in existence and through analogy, every subject Man has ever had or might want to have endeavor.

I try to not extrapolate on someone else’s interest if they are in a position to declare otherwise or change their mind.
But we’ll see.

ALL thought is “analyticity” (if that is a word).
A truth statement is first and foremost a statement. No statement can mean anything, true or false, if it does not comport to definitions concerning its words and their concepts. Definitional logic ensures that any statement concerning truth comports to and maintains the relevant definitions presented; ref: Proper Logical Presentation;

Other than tpyos or other stupidities, such a presentation will be correct 100% of the time. The truth value will be 100% because NO presumptions are made (other than the notion that anyone cares) and all possible alternatives have been properly denounced. But note that each element should be marked as to which type it is.

So yes it is “analytical”, although to say that it is “just analytical” is misleading and implying that analytical thought is not relevant to reality. Every proper ontology is a “mental map” of reality and its usefulness rests only in reality.

Yes. I think that I used the senses merely to relay a common experience as an example.

This gets into the very most fundamental division in thought, “subjectivity vs objectivity” and is being handled on the Stopped Clock Paradox Analysis thread. Verification confines subjectivity without removing it and thereby puts the Devil in a cage. Verification is the only function of Science, “demon-stratification” (removing the demon of doubt via empirically verified demonstration).

Can you think of anything that you know to exist yet has absolutely no affect upon anything?
I think we must conclude that without the property of affect, nothing can be rationally said to exist.

It is permissible with RM to construct an ontology that proposes “realms of existence” wherein anything said to exist must have affect within it’s own realm but not in another realm, for example the realms of the conceptual (the “Divine Realm”) and the physical (the “Mortal Realm”).

Currently many professors teach that quantum physics has proven that the back side of the Moon doesn’t exist when it is not being observed. That is the solipsist ontology being taught as Science, “reality is only what you have been convinced that it is”. But as stated above, every such subjectivist ontology can be confined or even annihilated merely with proper logical verification.

From the subjective stand point, one can say that “the electrons in the stars have no affect upon me”. They usually mean that they don’t care rather than there is no physical connection. They don’t have affect upon their chosen priorities. They are too insignificant to be concerned about. And in that regard, they are certainly correct. But what is immediately relevant or significant is not a concern for logic, merely rationality in immediate decision making. Truth is another matter, not entirely separate, just as those electrons are not entirely irrelevant. Without them, no stars could ever be seen. Without stars, navigation across seas and oceans would have been very restricted and Man would be even more primitive than he currently is.

But in RM:AO the word “potential” is referring to the actual ability, not merely the possibility if things unknown happen to be arranged sufficiently. RM:AO is not built upon ignorance of what is, but rather on what lacks any alternative but to be what it is (unlike quantum physics). Having the ability to know the difference, RM:AO is about absolute truths, not speculated possible truths preached by authorities.

PhysBang · November 2, 2013, 6:03pm

We should all take this passage very seriously. In that thread, James indicates that he doesn’t know special relativity, that he doesn’t want to know it, that he is willing to declare it incorrect anyway, and that he is fine with insulting everyone who takes the time to learn special relativity.

James is starting a cult.

If you want to uncritically follow him, fine.

James_S_Saint · November 2, 2013, 6:07pm

To PhysBang, anything contrary to his authority figures is a “cult”.
Yet who is the one being logical versus religious?
Logic displays a fundamental flaw in Special Relativity (What a heretical thought!!! Ban the man! Burn the Witch!).

gib · November 2, 2013, 7:53pm

The “just” was meant to tie your concept of definitional logic into something already commonly known in philosophy: analyticity is Kant’s idea (although I don’t think he coined the term “analyticity”–he said that certain statements are analytically true). “All bachelors are unmarried” is analytically true (or totaulogical) because it hinges only on the definitions of “bachelor” and “unmarried”.

You snuck that word in there.

I don’t know of anything that exists without affect, but I can imagine it. I brought in the image of a pre-Newtonian universe for a reason: before Newton, it was not only conceivable, but believed, that you could have objects suspended in space without affecting each other. It took Newton to prove that there would always be at least the affect of gravity upon every object from every object (did you know Descartes had a mechanics? It didn’t last very long and Newton’s eventually replaced it). I don’t think anyone had any trouble understanding that these objects would still exist.

But that doesn’t mean you can’t use the idea of affect to base a definition for “exist” on. I think you just have to acknowledge that it stems from what we know (scientifically) about the nature of reality (that everything affects everything else). It would be like defining matter as anything made of atoms–this isn’t an analytic truth for we can imagine what the term “matter” must have meant to those living before anything about atoms was understood, but if we accept it as a reasonable starting definition, it becomes analytic after that point.

(BTW, you might have something to say about the fact that even in my imagined scenario in which I have an object suspending in space not affecting and not being affect by other objects, I have to inadvertantly place myself in that scenario in order for me to see it; in other words, that object suspending in space cannot be imagined unless it affects my (imaginary) senses; this is contentious however because I don’t think the scenario in question explicitely involves me being there–that is, it isn’t defined such that my being there is an essential part of the scenario’s description, but it seems I’m still required to be there just to do the defining–it’s weird).

In any case, this may be irrelevant to the rest of RM, so let’s just go with your definition.

I think it was more of a logical positivist ontology being taught as science. There are many competing theories attempting to account for quantum mechanical findings, but none of them are actual science (that’s why they’re forced to call them “interpretations”).

MechanicalMonster · November 3, 2013, 5:59am

James, you officially have my interest. Damn, this shit is getting good.

So, let’s talk measurement; other than pure reason what evidence do you have for wavelets?
Note: logical necessity counts as “evidence”, of course. But I’m wondering… Newton’s revolutionary discoveries were based on the idea there was an ether. What you propose is that there IS an ether, but not a static one, a dynamic one. Heraclitean shit. Now you know we’re gonna be on board with that. But I’ve been thinking this through, and despite the coolness of your logic, I want you to CONVINCE me.

I mean, if this is so obvious, you must know why it’s been neglected by the mainstream. Other than the obvious. (idiocy)

Where did Einstein go wrong? He did account for cosmological constant, of course. And now we see that shit is necessary, even at near-zero.