AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

[Jakob]

AO (Affectance Ontology) holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to have any impact whatsoever. Being = Affectance.

VO (Value Ontology, or more accurately, self-valuing logic), holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to be consistently responsive in consistent terms.

To the thorough mind it will become instantly clear how subtle the difference between these positions is, and to the thoroughest mind, it will become clear that this difference points to a fundamental issue with cognition.

Both theories are, Ive found I need to stipulate, disciplines for the mind. They offer us disciplines that allow us to be consistent in what we say, about both existence in general and its particular instances.

I have a fundamental issue with AO, but that issue is so elevated on the tree of logic that it is pointless to pretend as if anyone could take sides against AO on my grounds. One has to understand VO, and thus understand the reasons I had for devising it, to see where I object to the notion of affectance as a consistent standard that translates directly into reality.

VO asks: how does one quantum of affectance/power affect the next one? What is it that happens "inside" the infinitesimal that has been derived? Since to ask after something smaller than infinitesimal is illogical, it is clearly something else that is being asked here. It's not a question that is easy to put into words - especially since we are already working with entirely new terms that themselves havent even been integrated into common language.

As I said our disagreement occurs at the very top of the ladder of logic, at the point that is so thoroughly singular that logics binary "A"="A" structure can't be applied anymore, as it simply claims too much, presumes too much.

It becomes reduced to something as incomprehensibly simple as " "≠" > "=".

[Jakob]

My issue with philosophy of basic premises as basic elements (episto-ontology) such as WtP and AO has since 2009 been my questioning of the implicit premise that agents of change can at the same time exist and interrelate.

Both AO and WtP offer that the interrelating itself is their existing. VO appears only when one asks what exactly happens to the one who is being reacted to. So I am Newtonean in my approach rather than Relativistic - I do consider a pure order - just not a finite one, and certainly not one limited to time and space as criteria for orientation.

VO offers that only being reacted to in a certain way qualifies as existence. Namely, in the way that feeds into perpetuation of the tendency that brought about the reaction. I call this self valuing. The term is questionable, as there is no self to value besides this valuing, which is consistent in both its approach and its being approached; Consistency, "stuff", empirical truth.

[encode_decode]

I have a simple question . . .

. . . what is the challenge?

I don't have a lot of time but I want to make the most of it.

[Jakob]

I have a simple question . . .

. . . what is the challenge?

I don't have a lot of time but I want to make the most of it.

I have a fundamental issue with AO, but that issue is so elevated on the tree of logic that it is pointless to pretend as if anyone could take sides against AO on my grounds. One has to understand VO, and thus understand the reasons I had for devising it, to see where I object to the notion of affectance as a consistent standard that translates directly into reality.

VO asks: how does one quantum of affectance/power affect the next one? What is it that happens "inside" the infinitesimal that has been derived? Since to ask after something smaller than infinitesimal is illogical, it is clearly something else that is being asked here. It's not a question that is easy to put into words - especially since we are already working with entirely new terms that themselves havent even been integrated into common language.

[Magnus Anderson]

AO (Affectance Ontology) holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to have any impact whatsoever. Being = Affectance.

I suppose that by being you mean existence.
If so, then it's not a good definition.
Something can exist without having an impact on something else.
The word "impact" denotes a specific type of relation between two different "measurements" or "observations" in time.

VO offers that only being reacted to [/i]in a certain way[/i] qualifies as existence. Namely, in the way that feeds into perpetuation of the tendency that brought about the reaction. I call this self valuing. The term is questionable, as there is no self to value besides this valuing, which is consistent in both its approach and its being approached; Consistency, "stuff", empirical truth.

So you're saying that existence has a more specific definition than the one provided by AO? If I understand correctly, you are saying that AO states that whatever has impact, no matter how insignificant, exists whereas VO states that only that which has a specific type of impact exists. Is that true?

[Jakob]

AO (Affectance Ontology) holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to have any impact whatsoever. Being = Affectance.

I suppose that by being you mean existence.
If so, then it's not a good definition.
Something can exist without having an impact on something else.
The word "impact" denotes a specific type of relation between two different "measurements" or "observations" in time.

Well I should really leave this to James, as it is his theory -
but how would you identify something that exists but has no impact whatsoever?

This is why I bring up the concept of cognition. Ontologies aren't just about whats "out there", but equally about our instruments for conceptualizing it.

VO offers that only being reacted to [/i]in a certain way[/i] qualifies as existence. Namely, in the way that feeds into perpetuation of the tendency that brought about the reaction. I call this self valuing. The term is questionable, as there is no self to value besides this valuing, which is consistent in both its approach and its being approached; Consistency, "stuff", empirical truth.

So you're saying that existence has a more specific definition than the one provided by AO? If I understand correctly, you are saying that AO states that whatever has impact, no matter how insignificant, exists whereas VO states that only that which has a specific type of impact exists. Is that true?

Yes. Because "impact" is, as are all concepts, a construct of the mind, so using the term isn't really sufficient for me - I needed to know what we are precisely referring to with "impact" or "affect" or "effect" - it is too abstract, not real enough.

So I went to investigate the requirements of "impact".
That's what VO is the end product of. "Self-valuing" is that which can both have and sustain impact, and continue existing as the same identifiable form, be it modified by the impact.

That all needs to happen before something can be registered as existent. Im not interested in what exists that we can't talk about - Im interested in defining and delimiting exactly what our position as humans allows us to think without erring.

[Jakob]

VO offers a conceptual minimum, an minimal logic-form, rather than a logically derived minimum element, like AO and WtP.
in fairness, WtP is only an unexploded logic-form, which led to my unfolding it into sv logic.

In other words it doesn't derive the minimum from already existent concepts, it doesn't break down something into a thesis simpler than it can practically be identified. The element it indicates is the elementary form of the object of knowledge, which is sustained by a hitherto invisible logic.

Selfvaluing logic works as a minimal, entirely unredundant form of thought with which we can define and define with true finesse.
Every-thing is elegantly explained, i.e. its past accurately reconstructed and its future behaviour accurately predicted, when it is interpreted as embodying its own instance of self-valuing logic.

/

I might identify it for the sake of the argument here as the logic following from the concept of possibility, omitting the idea of physical necessity. It follows then that physicality follows from necessity. But a lot is prior to it, as QM shows. (And why QP is, as James identified early on, utter horseshit). The possibility of existence produces a an infinitude of possible existences, which come to struggle with one another for actual existence, and may very wel exist parael and intertwined with and oblivious to each other. So Will to Power still begs the question of context. Why N had to conceptualize reality in two distinctly different forms of WtP: Master ethics vs Slave ethics; in VO, these are resolved as existent and non-existence. A slave is only a function of another manifestation of the first principle, to which a slave can't directly pertain.

RM and WtP can be studied as spearheads of the two main schools: RM a Rationalist, WtP an Existentialist take on the same logic, which, is my claim, only VO finally unfolds in a rational formula and unites the Analytic and Continental traditions, Rationalism and Existentialism become one as do Ontology and Epistemology. This is achieved by inserting the entire human apparatus into the equation of its interpretation. Nothing is omitted, so the context is purified of inconsistencies. All beings are seen as equally enforcing their being upon one another, and the resulting reality is seen as one great web of tension - differences using each other to enforce themselves - an utter chaos as regarded in stasis, and a perfect order when seen as unfolding.

Contexts interrelate like a fractal to itself, as all is ultimately the same context; valuing that part of the word that one has a causal/affect/power bond to in terms of ones own structural integrity/consistency/self-valuing tendency. A waveform always comes back to its mean. Stock trading uses this self valuing of the value to capitalize on those that expect continuous directions.

"All things are rooted in themselves" - Dogen
Only slavish forms are rooted in "the whole", which is only the commitment of slaves to each other to keep pretending that such a thing exists.

[James S Saint]

VO asks: how does one quantum of affectance/power affect the next one? What is it that happens "inside" the infinitesimal that has been derived?

Assuming that was your question...

There is no "next point" other than the next point of interest or of focus or study. The universe is a continuum. And at every location along a line of the continuum, there is a potential-to-affect, PtA. That PtA "affects" by propagating (PtA is a vector) and either increasing or decreasing the other locations of PtA down the line, as they are doing similar. The only existence is the level of PtA rising and lowering at varied rates (aka "Affectance"). All else of formed of merely that.



I explained that to you can Capable years ago.

The more recent video explanation:

[Magnus Anderson]

but how would you identify something that exists but has no impact whatsoever?

The word "existence" refers to the set of assumptions (you can also say the set of predictions or expectations) that influence our actions. It only applies to assumptions, it does not apply to facts. Facts refer to what we have experienced in the past. Assumptions refer to what we did not experience in the past but what could have happened in the past or what might happen in the future. You can say that facts also refer to existence, that wouldn't be wrong, but it would be redundant. There is no reason to do so.

With that in mind, the question "how do we identify what exists and what does not?" is in fact the question "how do we choose what to assume?" You can form assumptions any way you want but there is a way that evolved and persisted in certain organisms because it proved to be advantageous in certain environments -- those that are stable. This method works by choosing those assumptions that have the highest degree of similarity to one's personal experience.

Yes. Because "impact" is, as are all concepts, a construct of the mind, so using the term isn't really sufficient for me - I needed to know what we are precisely referring to with "impact" or "affect" or "effect" - it is too abstract, not real enough.

I would take the statistical approach. The question would be: what kind of set of statistical measurements allows us to perceive that one thing impacts another?

So I went to investigate the requirements of "impact".
That's what VO is the end product of. "Self-valuing" is that which can both have and sustain impact, and continue existing as the same identifiable form, be it modified by the impact.

Sensory information can have ANY kind of structure. There is no structure it must obey. There are our expectations that the existing structure will persist through time but we have to remember that what we expect, no matter how grounded in reality, is not the same thing as what's going to happen. In other words, the map is not the territory.

[encode_decode]

Yeah, thanks for making me re-read what I had already read. So now I will attempt to break down what you are saying without getting too far into VO.

I have a simple question . . .

. . . what is the challenge?

I don't have a lot of time but I want to make the most of it.

I have a fundamental issue with AO, but that issue is so elevated on the tree of logic that it is pointless to pretend as if anyone could take sides against AO on my grounds. One has to understand VO, and thus understand the reasons I had for devising it, to see where I object to the notion of affectance as a consistent standard that translates directly into reality.

VO asks: how does one quantum of affectance/power affect the next one? What is it that happens "inside" the infinitesimal that has been derived? Since to ask after something smaller than infinitesimal is illogical, it is clearly something else that is being asked here. It's not a question that is easy to put into words - especially since we are already working with entirely new terms that themselves havent even been integrated into common language.

Truly I would like to understand what you are getting at here but as I have pointed out to James before, language has become quite the chasm.

How do you propose that I begin to understand what you are saying in the piece that I have highlighted in red?

As for the piece that I have left in black - I am not sure how I am supposed to start piecing red and black together - there does not seem to be anything solid for me to work with. I am making my point because mostly, I would like to read this thread.

I guess I am going to have to read some VO if you are not willing to re-word what you are saying with the chance that I might just get "it".

Ah, my aching back.

[James S Saint]

The word "existence" refers to the set of assumptions (you can also say the set of predictions or expectations) that influence our actions.

I have yet to find anyone who can name anything they believe to exist and yet also believe to have absolutely no affect on anything. At times, they get concerned with the issue of something not having affect on them personally, which is not the issue. Can you think of anything that you believe to exist and yet also believe has absolutely no affect upon anything?

In RM:AO, what it means to physically exist is merely a declared definition within the ontology. And in reality, I haven't found anything that didn't fit that definition. But if someone wants to declare the existence of something that also has no affect upon anything, they are free to do so. They just can't declare it in RM:AO.

The concept is that if one doesn't accept that an existent thing must have affect, then he is being dangerously irrational, but not necessarily wrong. That is why it was named "Rational Metaphysics", because it is of use (aka rational) to declare that anything with no affect doesn't exist. We don't care if it exists as long as it has absolutely no affect on anything. So it is an issue of being rational rather than wildly speculative.

Can anyone name something that does not have any influence or affect upon anything whatsoever and yet is believed to exist?

[Jakob]

The word "existence" refers to the set of assumptions (you can also say the set of predictions or expectations) that influence our actions.

I have yet to find anyone who can name anything they believe to exist and yet also believe to have absolutely no affect on anything. At times, they get concerned with the issue of something not having affect on them personally, which is not the issue. Can you think of anything that you believe to exist and yet also believe has absolutely no affect upon anything?

In RM:AO, what it means to physically exist is merely a declared definition within the ontology. And in reality, I haven't found anything that didn't fit that definition. But if someone wants to declare the existence of something that also has no affect upon anything, they are free to do so. They just can't declare it in RM:AO.

The concept is that if one doesn't accept that an existent thing must have affect, then he is being dangerously irrational, but not necessarily wrong. That is why it was named "Rational Metaphysics", because it is of use (aka rational) to declare that anything with no affect doesn't exist. We don't care if it exists as long as it has absolutely no affect on anything. So it is an issue of being rational rather than wildly speculative.

Can anyone name something that does not have any influence or affect upon anything whatsoever and yet is believed to exist?

No one can. But I actually make the weird claim that something may be said to have an affect, and yet may not be said to exist.
Im putting it out there as weirdly as that, so as to show everyone that the logic behind ideas like fundamental elements is far less obvious than it appears when it is being phrased in terms of nouns and verbs. As a bare minimum to grasp what lies beyond the matured forms of manifestation from which finally language arises, we need terms that encompass noun and verb. In this light, encode, you should read "A self-valuing".

Summary of Value Ontology
Value Ontology Studies
semi comical video explanation of Value Ontology

[Jakob]

There is no "next point" other than the next point of interest or of focus or study. The universe is a continuum. And at every location along a line of the continuum, there is a potential-to-affect, PtA. That PtA "affects" by propagating (PtA is a vector) and either increasing or decreasing the other locations of PtA down the line, as they are doing similar. The only existence is the level of PtA rising and lowering at varied rates (aka "Affectance"). All else of formed of merely that.



I explained that to you can Capable years ago.

I understand all this, and I will reiterate my appreciation of it.
However, my question remains unanswered: what is it that causes one infinitesimal of PtA to have that PtA?

So I am not asking "what is existence" (I agree that for a thing to be said to exist, it must be said to have (had!) an impact) but how is affectance "stored" in infinitesimals that actually are different from one another, so as to be able to influence one another, so as to form a continuum.

[Magnus Anderson]

The word "existence" refers to the set of assumptions (you can also say the set of predictions or expectations) that influence our actions.

It is true. Only assumptions that have an influence on our actions are considered to be "existent". However, what we assume will happen need not have any influence on anything else even if it happened.
Your definition of existence is ontological (i.e. idealistic.) Mine is epistemological (i.e. pragmatic.)
There is a massive difference between the two.

Can anyone name something that does not have any influence or affect upon anything whatsoever and yet is believed to exist?

It is impossible if you automatically, unconsciously, imagine that it has an influence on something else.
Which is something a lot of people do.

The central point is that the future is under no obligation to mimic the past.
Even if everything in our past influenced something else there is no guarantee that such a trend will continue into the future.

[Jakob]

but how would you identify something that exists but has no impact whatsoever?

The word "existence" refers to the set of assumptions (you can also say the set of predictions or expectations) that influence our actions. It only applies to assumptions, it does not apply to facts. Facts refer to what we have experienced in the past. Assumptions refer to what we did not experience in the past but what could have happened in the past or what might happen in the future. You can say that facts also refer to existence, that wouldn't be wrong, but it would be redundant. There is no reason to do so.

Magnus I am going to have to play the devils advocate here.
Are you saying facts do not exist? And that existence is not a fact?

I know these seem redundant questions to you, but philosophy is much about clearing away the possibilities of redundancies creeping into your formulations.

With that in mind, the question "how do we identify what exists and what does not?" is in fact the question "how do we choose what to assume?" You can form assumptions any way you want but there is a way that evolved and persisted in certain organisms because it proved to be advantageous in certain environments -- those that are stable. This method works by choosing those assumptions that have the highest degree of similarity to one's personal experience.

Yes: humans make assumptions based on which assumptions will feel (appear) beneficial to them.
This is the selfvaluing of human self-awareness. More often than not, it is the enemy to human biological self-valuing; political correctness is self valuing of awareness at the cost of selfvaluing of biology, and thus leads to Étransgenderism" i.e. castration, end of the line, death, non-being.

Yes. Because "impact" is, as are all concepts, a construct of the mind, so using the term isn't really sufficient for me - I needed to know what we are precisely referring to with "impact" or "affect" or "effect" - it is too abstract, not real enough.

I would take the statistical approach. The question would be: what kind of set of statistical measurements allows us to perceive that one thing impacts another?

Yes, very astute.
There are unseen criteria that determine our choices of the criteria by which we interpret measurement.

So I went to investigate the requirements of "impact".
That's what VO is the end product of. "Self-valuing" is that which can both have and sustain impact, and continue existing as the same identifiable form, be it modified by the impact.

Sensory information can have ANY kind of structure. There is no structure it must obey. There are our expectations that the existing structure will persist through time but we have to remember that what we expect, no matter how grounded in reality, is not the same thing as what's going to happen. In other words, the map is not the territory.

There is no map, there is only territory. Every map is a lie, like "A"="A" is a lie. A lie that can take us places, but never point us to the core of our existence, never reveal meaning, value, purpose, sources of strength.

That is all "meaning" is. A source of strength, and that is its only meaning.

[James S Saint]

what is it that causes one infinitesimal of PtA to have that PtA?

Re-guessing the intent of your question, the short answer is "all of the other PtAs". The formal explanation, perhaps familiar, is as follows:

These are some pictorials to hopefully make it a little more clear;

That is merely a pictorial of the Potential for Affect (the "void").
There is no universe yet. It is merely the concept of where to begin realizing the situation. At no point in time was the physical universe at that stage. That pic represents infinite homogeneity. Infinite homogeneity is logically impossible. No two points in that pic can actually be infinitely similar to any other, and certainly not to all others. Thus a little closer to the reality this the following pic;

In that pic is displayed a random variation of the potential for affect. Each tiny area has a different potential to have affect upon any others. If one could carefully examine "empty space" and see the potential for affect, the PtA, that is the kind of view that would be seen. "Empty space" is never actually empty. But so far, we are still merely talking about the Potential for Affect, not any actual, existing affects. The question might arise to the mind as to how large those little dots are. Interestingly, they don't actually have any particular size. If you were to examine any small volume within that volume a little closer, you would see the same kind of picture;

There is no lower limit to that statistical effect. No matter how small of a volume you take, you would see that exact same kind of picture.

That random pattern is merely the state from which one can begin seeing what happens next and is applicable from absolute zero volume up to a special point called the "Level of Inertia" or "Maximum Change Rate, MCR". No particles can form on any level lower than the level of inertia. When affects get to the level of inertia is when things begin to get interesting.

Now please note that so far, this is NOT a "theory". It is the epistemology of defining concepts at the beginning of an ontology, an understanding of the physical universe. So far, all of this is mathematically and logically provable because it is merely conceptual. The few concepts involved leave no alternative concerning the pics above. It is easily distinguished from Quantum Mysticism because note that there is no Planck length (minimum size) involved. Physical quantizing cannot begin until we get passed the level of inertia. What has apparently mystified scientists is the issue of exactly why there would be a level of inertia.

A potential-to-affect is a situation or circumstance from which an actual affect arises. And an "affect", is an occurrence of such potentials changing, or such situations changing. An affect is a changing. The potential that brings an affect is the situation stemming from all of the surrounding affects. Every affect, affects its own surroundings as it is simultaneously affected by those surroundings. It is an ocean of give-and-take occurrences. Thus the "surroundings" form the "potential-to-affect", PtA. And the "affect" is the resultant effect of the PtA.

Related declarations and relations
- Instantaneous Affect cannot occur, else it is not affecting, but has already affected.
- Time is the result of how much one PtA is changing compared to another changing.
- Distance or separation in location is formed due to the amount of changing PtA.
- Spacetime exists as the changing of potential-to-affect, PtA.
- Affectance or a Field of Affectance is the entire field of all affects within a region.
- Infinite Homogeneity is impossible within any portion of any Field of Affectance.
- All PtA levels are finite and thus can only generate finite affects as they dissipate themselves.
- The final balance of affect upon affect is necessarily zero for that reason - "conservation of energy".


Another way to look at potential is that it is an opportunity due to an imbalance, a situation wherein, for example, what we think of as forces or force-affects are not evenly distributed and thus yield the opportunity for something to change.

People in physics often think of "potential" as a type of substance. But it isn't a substance in the normal use of the word. It is merely a situation of imbalance. Potential is not something that is possessed by an object, but rather is formed by a situation involving objects. Potential is not a property of an item, but the property of an arrangement in an environment. It is the situation that determines any potential.

Space, the ocean of affectance, can never have infinitely homogeneous potential, opportunity for change, concerning every one of the infinity of PtA points within it. The situation of perfect balance, even in what we think of as "empty space", cannot exist.

[Magnus Anderson]

Are you saying facts do not exist?

I am saying that the word "exist" only applies to assumptions.
An example of an assumption would be "I imagine I was attacked by a rottweiler yesterday".
This assumption can either be classified as existent, if what facts I possess support it, or as non-existent, if they don't.
If I have a memory of being attacked by a rottweiler on yesterday's day then I will classify it as existent. Otherwise, I may not.

And that existence is not a fact?

When I assume something that very act becomes a fact.
But that does not mean there is no difference between assumptions and facts.

Assumptions are IMAGINATIONS.
Facts are MEMORIES OF WHAT WE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST.

Yes: humans make assumptions based on which assumptions will fee beneficial to them.

They make assumptions based on what assumptions are best aligned with what was experienced in the past. Such assumptions can be beneficial but not in the way that assumptions are beneficial to subjectivists. Subjectivists assume what's going to happen based on what they want to happen. Their assumptions are beneficial to them in the sense that they help them control their emotional reactions.

There is no map, there is only territory. Every map is a lie, like "A"="A" is a lie. A lie that can take us places, but never point us to the core of our existence, never reveal meaning, value, purpose, sources of strength.

Map = what we expect will happen.
Territory = what will happen.

There is a distinction between the two.
Even if your expectations are extremely realistic they still are not the same as what's going to happen.
Even if you are 100% certain that something will happen that something might not happen.
This is captured by Hume's statement that "the future is under no obligation to mimic the past".

[Jakob]

James, thanks for your contribution.
My postion hasn't been altered, except that I am more at peace personally when you and I aren't being hostile. Its a waste.
If we both stick to purely logical issues, I think we'll continue to get along well.

Another way to look at potential is that it is an opportunity due to an imbalance, a situation wherein, for example, what we think of as forces or force-affects are not evenly distributed and thus yield the opportunity for something to change.

People in physics often think of "potential" as a type of substance. But it isn't a substance in the normal use of the word. It is merely a situation of imbalance. Potential is not something that is possessed by an object, but rather is formed by a situation involving objects. Potential is not a property of an item, but the property of an arrangement in an environment. It is the situation that determines any potential

Yes.
An entities potential is certainly relative to its environment. Potential works the same as the weather, through low and high pressure.
VO allows for different criteria of pressure, potential, to be worked into the same equation.

[URUZ]

Saying that something exists iff it affects something is reversing the logic. Things affect only iff they exist.

In contrast, VO actually explains why things exist, as well as what existence is. AO is a joke, like a sad religion with no followers.

[James S Saint]

Saying that something exists iff it affects something is reversing the logic. Things affect only iff they exist.

It isn't a question of logic, else you are trapped into presuming an axiom. In RM:AO it is an issue of declaring what shall be called existent or not. Through such a rational declaration, affecting and existing are the same thing, neither happens without the other. It's just that the term "affecting" has commonly understood and significant meaning whereas "existing" is too often ambiguous and debated.

In contrast, VO actually explains why things exist, as well as what existence is.

At best, it explains how things manage to continue to exist (and I am being lenient).

And since you know almost nothing of RM:AO, and would try to lie about it even if you did, your opinion of it is pretty worthless.

[Jakob]

Saying that something exists iff it affects something is reversing the logic. Things affect only iff they exist.

It isn't a question of logic, else you are trapped into presuming an axiom. In RM:AO it is an issue of declaring what shall be called existent or not. Through such a rational declaration, affecting and existing are the same thing, neither happens without the other. It's just that the term "affecting" has commonly understood and significant meaning whereas "existing" is too often ambiguous and debated.

I think that you, like most analytic philosophers, are being seduced by your own terms. They are an outcome of an analysis of reality in terms of language, but you used them as a ground. It is not at all said that the term affectance represents, in its behaviour in language, the behaviour of the objects it claims to address. Ive not seen any proof of this. Ive been waiting for proof in the form of Jack, but eventually I stopped asking for it.

In contrast, VO actually explains why things exist, as well as what existence is.

At best, it explains how things manage to continue to exist (and I am being lenient).

Continue to exist beyond non-existence. Continue to exist so that they can be said to exist, beyond being inferred to have caused the existence of the next moment which, when observed, turns out to only be the next previous, already gone moment, and empirically speaking never existed. As I said, it includes a cognitive issue, deeper than mere ontology. Quite simply put: Infinitesimals can per definition not have substance. Substance is always differentiated.

What is of great value to me in RM is definitional logic. This precedes, both logically and in terms of when you came up with it, AO. My contention is that AO is a misguided derivative of RM: Definitional Logic.

The big disagreement Capable and I are having with AO is that there is no logical reason to assume that the machinery, process of any definitional logic applies directly to the machinery, process, mechanisms, of empirical reality.
The logic of terms (language) does not behave in the same way as the logic of existence itself. It is far simpler. VO describes the infinitely more complex logic of existence before it amounts in equal terms.

VO does not rely on language but usurps it. (Dorically) It addresses what being is to the mind. It thus, as the first of all philosophies, actually addresses the mind. And the mind is the ground to "being" - because "being" is a conception.
RM might advance radically if it would be employed to address the terms of which it is built. This is Absolute Reason (AR).

[James S Saint]

Was there a question in all of that?

[encode_decode]

It looks like some sort of semi-elaborate trap to me - ego based - what is to be gained here?

[Jakob]

It looks like some sort of semi-elaborate trap to me - ego based - what is to be gained here?

You got me.

[Jakob]

Was there a question in all of that?

No, just a challenge.