AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Was there a question in all of that?

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

:-k



You got me.

No, just a challenge.

Being?

Huh, I was not accusing you of anything. I was accusing the ego of something, can you guess what it is? Knowing what is to be gained can avoid that pain.

Semi-elaborate because it is pretty obvious to a third party.

Whats up with all the images?

Well its in the OP!
I can rephrase it as a question:
How does an infinitesimal affect the next one?
But the challenge assumes that this question is presumed irrelevant, as it is only the “that it happens” that matters for AO, not the “how/why it happens”.
Which is the concern for VO.
VO asks: what criteria are there for affecting?

Just playing around.
The ego is itself a trap. I have had to shed my ego entirely in order to illuminate people, because most people who receive intellectual gifts feel they need to reach deep into their assholes, grab hold of as much shit as they can, and throw it at the virtuous bestower. So I have no more “little self” as N calls it, just a “greater self” - my body.

This reduces my reaction, to the shit-tossing-economy which exists below the intellectual economy, to laughter. Hence the pictures. I can’t help being amused.

I answered in detail “how it happens”. Apparently you wanted to ask “Why it happens”. That is a different question.

And the answer to that question is the answer to “why is there existence?” (because affecting and existing are the same thing).

There is existence/affecting because it is logically and mathematically impossible for there to not be. And that reasoning is based upon the possibility of absolute homogeneity. Having mathematically proved that absolute homogeneity is impossible, we are left with the unavoidable fact that there are variations in potential-to-affect. All it takes is the slightest variation in PtA and the universe is off and running.

Did you want to see the math again (and again, and…)?

But such a logic proof or reasoning is actually irrelevant anyway. AO is first a “constructed ontology”, an artifact of the mind. It is secondly a “proposed theory” to suggest that the constructed ontology is empirically true to reality. The proof that AO is true to reality comes through its total rational consistency and also its complete alignment with current scientific observations (as well as being able to answer a few science mysteries). The empirical evidence puts the cap on the proof. The logic demanded that AO be true to reality anyway, but empirical verification is always appreciated.

Okay, so now your turn, what is your answer to the same question, “WHY is there valuing?” (or “what criteria are there” for valuing?).

Here’s an interesting question: what does it mean for there to not be existence? What is non-existence? If you’re going to say that there is no such a thing as non-existence, you must already know what non-existence is. So what is non-existence? You guys are using these terms all over the place. Surely, you must know what these terms mean?

What most people mean when they say non-existence is a point in time in which a theory (or a model of reality) predicts (or rather determines, generates or causes) no event. That would be general non-existence. There is also specific non-existence. An example would be when someone says there is no tree at some point in space at some point in time. It’s specific because there might be something at that point in space at that point in time it’s just that it is not a tree. In other words, specific non-existence claims that a specific thing is not to be found at certain point in space at certain point in time. Unlike general non-existence, it does not claim that no thing is to be found at certain point in spacetime.

Of course, these people are not speaking of ANY theory. Nor are they speaking of a theory someone holds to be true. They are speaking of a theory that describes exactly how the universe works. They BELIEVE that there is such a theory. That’s their core assumption. Even though “how the universe works” is a meaningless phrase.

The assumption that some theory describes exactly how the universe works cannot be verified, it can only falsified. Which means it is not a proper assumption. Proper assumptions can be both verified and falsified. An example would be an assumption that there is a tree at some place at some point in time. You can test that assumption by looking at that place at that point in time. The tree is either there or it is not. The assumption is proven correct or it is proven incorrect.

There is simply no way to test the assumption that there is a theory that describes exactly the way the universe works. This means that there is no way to test whether any given theory is the one that describes exactly the way the universe works. Which means that there is no way to prove – mathematically, logically or empirically – that non-existence is not a feature of such a theory.

So all this talk about how non-existence is logically or mathematically impossible is nothing more than intellectual masturbation.