AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

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.

Magnus

Allow me to take a stab at a few points you have made - please don’t take what I have to say too seriously, I just want to break things up a little.

I would say that it means nothing for there not to be existence. Non-existence is nothing. I think non-existence means nothing. :smiley:

I would say that there is never a non-existent state at some point in space at some point in time - just an non-configured state at some point in space at some point in time. The existence if treated as a substance is always there but in a different state - the tree always exists but not as a tree. All of the particles that make up the tree are in different states at different points in space and time, and at the points in space and time that the tree exists the particles are configured to a tree state - this obviously always changes so change is also never in a non-existent state.

My humorous attempt is dependent of course by what I mean by state - so definitions become useful at these points in space and time.

If time is a linear dimension then we would have to say that there can only ever be one point in time.

Have you ever considered time to be multidimensional?

How the universe doesn’t work is perhaps a more meaningless phrase.

So you are essentially saying that we can only verify things on a smaller scale because the universe is too large to verify.

There is no way to prove nothing - you can only prove something. If there is nothing there to prove >> then nothing can be proved. If there is something there to prove then something can be proved. I hope I am making some sort of sense here.

Intellectual masturbation - I will have to remember that.

:laughing:

Don’t mind me, I am just having some . . . well I am not sure what I was trying to achieve.

Perhaps I too was just intellectually masturbating, even though that is not what I was trying to achieve.

But in everyday life we often say things such as “there is no this or there is no that” or “this or that does not exist”. Do you agree? For example, there are no clowns in my backyard. Are there clowns in your backyard? Do they exist over there? Similarly, I can say that “there are no zombies” or “zombies do not exist” to mean that “I cannot observe zombies anywhere within the environment that I live”. What this means is that the concept of non-existence is meaningful. It does have a meaning. The question is only what kind of meaning. And the answer is what I referred to as specific non-existence in my earlier post. Non-existence, in this sense, simply refers to an unmet expectation or to an expectation that you think will be unmet. You expect something to happen at some point in time and that something simply does not happen at that point in time. That’s non-existence of whatever you have expected to happen at that point in time.

But if you assume that the universe works according to a set of rules, which means that there is a theory that can represent this set of rules with perfect accuracy, and if you agree, which I am sure everyone will agree, that a theory can predict (or determine) what’s going to happen at some points in time and not predict (or determine) what’s going to happen at other points in time, then non-existence is possible. Non-existence, in this sense, simply refers to a point in time for which a theory predicts (or determines) no event. Does this make sense? A universal theory, in this sense, is a set of rules that God follows in order to decide the state of the universe at every point in time at every point in space. Existence refers to those points in time for which He makes a decision. The number of these may be finite or infinite. Non-existence refers to those points in time for which He makes no decision. The number of these too may be finite or infinite.

The universe isn’t “too large” to verify. You can verify assumptions regarding things of any size. Sure, it will take a lot of time for the larger ones, but it is still possible to verify them.
The problem is that the concept of universe is not well defined. It has no reference to any particular.

I think the difference between AO and VO is that AO explains the Universe in a scientific sense pertaining to objects and forces and VO explains it in a psychological
or philosophical sense pertaining to values. And so consequently I see them as separate from each other though not incompatible. VO is very human centric in a way
that AO is not. For AO would still hold true if human beings did not exist whereas VO would not as it is human beings who give value to ideas pertaining to existence
A life less Universe could not have value because there would be nothing to give it any. The other and definitely most fundamental difference between AO and VO is
that AO is an objective ontology whereas VO is a subjective one. For AO is based upon observation while VO is based upon interpretation. Values are objectively real
but what makes them subjective is the specific set of values a human being may adopt over other sets and also how different human beings will adopt different sets
These can be moral or political or religious or philosophical or any combination thereof. And so to sum up. AO and VO are two ontologies which I do not think should
invite comparison with each other simply because they deal with entirely different aspects of existence. Although each is true from their own particular perspective

That is a pretty good superficial analysis. But as you get deeper into AO there is the subject of PHT, “Perception of Hope and Threat”. PHT handles all human, animal, governing, and societal behaviors and issues, certainly including any registered values.

In RM:AO:Psychology, PHT is the psychological parallel of positive (hope) and negative (threat) affectance (aka “charge”). Throughout AO:Physics whenever positive or negative PtA levels or positive and negative charged particles are mentioned, there is an exact parallel pertaining to psychological, sociological, governing, and economical behaviors and issues. AO:PHT is RM:AO’s version of VO and virtually identical except that AO:PHT includes a great deal more precise details as to how, why, and how much. Human and animal values are assigned due to perceptions of hope and threat. I could go around saying that atoms “maintain their existence by perceiving hope and threat”, but … :-k :confused:

I would not compare positive and negative particles with positive and negative psychological states as they are entirely different things
Particles do not have consciousness and are not capable of emotion so are not the same as human beings. And trying to equate the two
makes this aspect of AO appear rather fuzzy. In science physics and biology and psychology are treated as separate domains. Therefore
having separate and distinct ones for AO would make it a better ontology. Since it would have more clarity and be easier to understand