Moderator: Only_Humean
encode_decode wrote: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.
Jakob wrote:AO (Affectance Ontology) holds that being is sufficiently defined as that which can be said to have any impact whatsoever. Being = Affectance.
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.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Jakob wrote: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 wrote: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?
Jakob wrote:but how would you identify something that exists but has no impact whatsoever?
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.
Jakob wrote:encode_decode wrote: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 wrote:The word "existence" refers to the set of assumptions (you can also say the set of predictions or expectations) that influence our actions.
From the Book, I wrote: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.
James S Saint wrote:Magnus Anderson wrote:The word "existence" refers to the set of assumptions (you can also say the set of predictions or expectations) that influence our actions.From the Book, I wrote: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?
James S Saint wrote: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.
James S Saint wrote:Magnus Anderson wrote:The word "existence" refers to the set of assumptions (you can also say the set of predictions or expectations) that influence our actions.
Can anyone name something that does not have any influence or affect upon anything whatsoever and yet is believed to exist?
Magnus Anderson wrote:Jakob wrote: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.
Jakob wrote:what is it that causes one infinitesimal of PtA to have that PtA?
From the Book, I wrote: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.
Jakob wrote:Are you saying facts do not exist?
And that existence is not a fact?
Yes: humans make assumptions based on which assumptions will fee beneficial to them.
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.
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
UrGod wrote:Saying that something exists iff it affects something is reversing the logic. Things affect only iff they exist.
UrGod wrote:In contrast, VO actually explains why things exist, as well as what existence is.
James S Saint wrote:UrGod wrote: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.
UrGod wrote: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).
encode_decode wrote:It looks like some sort of semi-elaborate trap to me - ego based - what is to be gained here?
James S Saint wrote:Was there a question in all of that?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users