Where does meaning come from?

And what I posted is the culmination of almost 25 years of trying to find a metaphysical solution to a theological problem. The reductionist method of information is the solution for that problem, but I’ve come to be fascinated with philosophy and metaphysics along the way. I’m a rank amateur and understand if you find it prudent to distance yourself from my abstract rambling to pursue more practical avenues. I enjoy our discussion and will continue to mine treasure here. Glad I found this place.

Anomaly654

I am hoping I have not given off the incorrect signal - I actually enjoy our interaction very much.

I had a feeling you have been at this for a while and I am glad for our interaction - it is always great to come across another person with such commitment - I have nothing against the reductionist method, and I think it is the perfect method for what we are talking about - I just like to exercise caution with any method that I am not missing something along the way, hence my previous comments. I will not be distancing myself from your abstract rambling and I hope that you do not distance yourself from mine. These threads are a part of my practical avenues. I too have found great enjoyment in our discussion and will happily continue to - I too am glad you found this place.

Be aware that there might be some cultural differences in the way we use more general language, I have already experienced this issue at ILP.

Not at all, lol, just a knee-jerk reaction from posting my stuff on other sites, probably. Material in last post is usually where everyone begins to politely ignore and I become the elephant in the room.

Shouldn’t be a worry here my friend, I don’t think deeply enough to take the reduction into truly philosophical realms. One thing I’ve learned pretty abruptly is that in things philosophical my pen quickly outdistances my intellectual abilities, but I do appreciate being told by intelligent folk where it goes wrong so I can reassess.

Anomaly654

I can nearly guarantee you that I am going to rub someone the wrong way at least once a week around here :smiley: but there is always the smile.

The material in your last post is what inspires me…probably the most. You might find that those other people are remarkably stupid even if they don’t seem it.

Well it seems to me that you have put quite a bit of deep thought into what you have been doing - deep thought need not be intense thought in a short period - one can descend into the depths over a longer period of time.

When I said that I would read your post a couple more times it is because I find it important enough to.

surreptitious75

Each persons mind is a little different and each person deals with their work and ways differently to the way they conduct their lives too. I do not use an automotive manual to guide my life and therefore I am able to return to my life after using such a manual to perform maintenance on an automobile.

I said to you:

I will say that as long as any methodology is kept in its place then all is well - that includes any methodology that I use even the mixed up ones. My intent here
is not to confuse anyone but I am not entirely sure how I can avoid that. The best thing that I can see is everyone is still using their own brain around here and
that is something I always like to see and as I said to WendyDarling:

Never forget to stay anchored to your position for as long as is necessary - I hope this helps
To which you responded:

I agree as I said before - my words would have been different but meant the same. I think it is reasonable to say that “as long as it can be reasonably defended” is the same as “as long as is necessary” in a particular context. The context I would give is that of if you do not quite understand the opposing argument that is correct then perhaps it would be necessary to stand by your own position until you do. Of course this is dependent on the person being able to shift positions when the correct position becomes apparent - best summed up by what you said at the end there; The right mental attitude is therefore as important as the positions themselves if not more so.

Since of the four aspects of reality mentioned earlier—force/energy, value, matter, information—the matter-energy connection is well known and uncontroversial, you have me wondering how/where information and value fit into the picture in terms of abstractive layering. Matter and energy are observable and the most empirical phenomenon, though to think about existence as energy is obviously abstract and material existence is the norm. This seems to place matter in the lowest category of abstractive layering. Force-energy’s acceptance by the status quo as a legitimate rendering of existence seems to place it in the 2nd layer.

Information and value remain. Though both are abstractions, it seems easier to infer instances of value (at least of descriptive value) in phenomenal reality than it does information. In this regard information seems more aligned with meaning in that both appear to share a certain “isness” feature of reality. Both also have something in common with pornography and truth—we know what they are when we see them but they’re difficult to define.

I tend to focus on information and work outward to the others, not that information does, or should, occupy a certain place, just that information and value are most interesting to me. The concept you present of truth states as having both permanence and non-permanence is an integral part of my worldview.

Value imo breaks down to [or exhibits itself as] two kinds, descriptive-prescriptive. It’s further divided in information in one of two denominations or grades, true and false. Degrees or quantities of value are, in descriptive matters, just mathematical configurations because value [truth] inherent in descriptive reality is absolute. The notion of falsity has no meaning in a purely descriptive world—“no ought from is” seems to persist throughout the material. But from the perspective of perception, falsity exists in two primary considerations (I think this finds association with your permanence in the midst of the absolute):
a. First, a sub-category of prescriptive value—truth-value associated with intellectual operation-which is actually falsifiable; [in naturalistic terms, intellectual consciousness; in theology the soul].
b. Second, attributed or derivative falsification in the mutability of inorganic entities as an aspect of the perceived instrumental value within a given mutation.

For example, a house designed to provide comfort, shelter and a variety of conveniences can be said to be “wholly true” when it meets these needs fully. Over time as the material elements of the house change—settling of the foundation, breakdown of mechanical and electrical systems, deterioration of roofing and external covering materials, etc.—from the perspective of the instrumental value of the house, it’s “falsified” to an uninhabitable state. Thus, attributed falsification is a quality that stands in reference to an ultimate truth-state in human judgment, and that ultimate truth state references an absolute truth-state—the absolute truth state of the constituent micro components of the house and of all matter. The unchanging descriptive truth-values of the micro or atomic/subatomic level constituents of the house remain unaffected; mutation on this level is merely a redistributive process and has no correlation to falsity, i.e., there is no “good” available to the truth of inorganics, although aesthetic goodness can be conceptualized from various material arrangements. Matter’s value is purely technical and practical. I find interesting the relationship between value and external design in the analogy of the house. This association seems to recur (can be interpreted to occur) throughout the varied configurations of material existence.

Another example is the life of a piece of fruit. The assorted truth-values inherent in the components of each atom are always unalterably true, even while the macro entities they occupy undergo modification. The atoms that constitute an unpicked apple all retain the microscopic exactness of their respective t-values while the apple they occupy undergoes change from sprout to maturity to ripening and senescence and decomposition. In the decay process there may be exchanges of components on the subatomic level in the associated chemical processes, but this is redistribution, not change in value states of those components.

In both cases instrumental value–the described goods made available in house design and perceived goods [taste, nutrition, etc.] in the apple which become falsified (decay, while natural, no longer provides goods to an agent)–is in perception.

Is this anything like what you mean about permanence not being what we think it is or am I off?

Anomaly654

What we are talking about is quite fresh to me - I really appreciate having conversation like this to challenge my brain into novel bubbles of thought and yet we are discussing something with wide range - this is good. With such wide ranging implications and hints at even more, I need you to forgive me if I do seem to veer on the topics at hand - you are free and may bring me back in line with our conversation as needed - I am happy for that to happen.

Truth states conform with reality, that much we can say - I will get my bearings here in a moment. Each truth state is a consequence of the previous truth state and affects the next truth state to be. Permanent truth states can be regarded as laws and exist in the divine realm and at times are the same as physically true states - I hope I am making sense here. What does seem to be permanent is change - how can that be?

We like to think of permanence as that which is the state or quality of lasting or remaining unchanged indefinitely. So I am saying that change is what remains unchanged indefinitely - a semantic problem at least - however if you can somehow follow what I am saying here you will see that change is indefinite.

Perhaps it is better to say that a law does not change but truth does - but what would that entail? Surely an infinity of laws to cover all of the truth states, so as you can see truth is a very real problem but then so is law - how we choose to deal with this is what I believe is important and in an ever increasingly complex(seemingly) life, it would seem that we are destined to use heuristic tools until we - maybe ever - find more precise tools to play catch up with reality.

I would have to say that information and value float around on top of the matter-energy connection somehow and that is me putting it rather poorly. I do believe that information is empirical at times and thus is an indication of the existence of empirical degrees. I also think the concept of energy has more value in the grand scheme of things than that which we currently give it. Somewhere down there at the nanoscopic level and beyond must be a connection between energy and information.

Perhaps I am already lending some insight to the problem . . .

With any luck I am still speaking the language of the discussion. I think you are on to something here with “instances” and my suggestion is that they are still impossible to measure perfectly but descriptive value need not be perfect anyway. I have to agree that information is aligned with meaning but I will say I sense some issue with value not being a part of meaning - not that you were saying that necessarily and so it seems as you have put it knowing does become hard to define.

I would recommend that you maintain your focus as there are plenty who focus from differing frames of reference. I am certain that information does actually occupy a certain place and that information does have spatial displacement somehow but this might not be imperative to your focus - I am glad to hear that truth states have both permanence and non-permanence as an integration of your worldview - the way you maintain your conception of the world is I believe valuable.

It is going to take me a while longer to digest what else you have written - it is very stimulating. I find synergy with what you said, “mutation on this level is merely a redistributive process and has no correlation to falsity”, you have shown me some deeper insight into the idea of abstractive layering through this statement.

I love the house analogy . . .

I agree entirely with what you have said here providing it is being maintained as a view point because I still think we can go below the atomic state to a particle state and below the particle state to the PtA states - a story for another day. By the way, I really like your analogies.

Nailed it!

I am getting great value out of our conversation Anomaly654. I also think that when conversing at such a level - mutation on this level is merely a redistributive process and has no correlation to falsity - is something to keep in mind - it may sound a little warped - hopefully you detect my meaning.

:smiley:

Been thinking about PtA and its place in information En-De. Just briefly, trying to piece together some things, it seems to me PtA is has potential (pun intended) to explain one reason I use the “iota” as a reduction of information. Since you provided the concept I want to be sure I’m not abusing your sense of the term. In my thinking iotas form abstract point-locales. Point locales can either be spatially or abstractly located. “Location” appears to me to be in raw form a specificity, so location of an abstract object is limited to a specific meaning that stands outside spacetime, while spatial point-locales have both specificity and temporal behaviors in space. For a meaning to sustain in conceptualization seems to me to require the ‘that-what’ structure, and point-locales provide thatness.

How a thing can have a PtA lets me shift the view from information to force-energy fairly smoothly. I like this concept. It seems the PtA estimation of abstract things lies in their capacity to inform perception, and this capacity seems to require some sort of dynamic or force. I use the expression “force-energy” because force seems more generic and applicable to non-spatial reality while energy is more grounded as a function in time and space. Both can be used interchangeably, of course. My point is, each iota of information might contain as its value, one PtA for each component—thus, each iota would possess exactly 2 PtA, one for each component value (V) and particularity (P). Building from the reduction outward, I’ll assume arbitrarily that the simplest piece of matter—the quark I think—contains 10 PtA of P and 10 of V at its spatial point-locale. Potential in “potential to affect” is from this viewpoint a quantity of force or energy.

Is this understanding of PtAs as the force—either/both potential or/and actual—possible in your understanding and use of the term? Your suggesting that a PtA state is “below” or less than a particle state appears to place PtA in some other domain than I’m picturing. Also, is PtA a term your invention, a term you’ve used in copyrighted material or can I use it too? And thanks for your responses btw. I usually operate in a vacuum which can create stagnation…your contributions are welcome and stimulating, great stuff.

Anomaly654

Just to clarify a bit better than I have, PtA is not a thing or entity, but rather a measure of a situation at a point. PtA, Potential-to-Affect, refers to a physical situation, an arrangement of substance, not the substance itself.

I hope you don’t mind me taking you a layer deeper into this conceptual realm of PtA and I also want to introduce a new term: affectance. As PtA changes, it describes the physical substance called “affectance”. And PtA is always undergoing changes, being affected as it affects. Affectance is the changing of the PtA situation. Affectance is the changing whereas PtA is the arrangement of the changing that is itself being changed.

One way to think about this is . . .
. . . PtA being analogous to an electric field and . . .
. . . affectance being analogous to an electromagnetic wave . . .
. . . an electric field is merely a situation, not a substance . . .
. . . an electromagnetic wave is an electric field that is changing.

This sounds very reasonable to me. I really like your concept of iotas. The way you have explained it is quite understandable when I concentrate my focus on what you have written. As a side note, James and I also have a time unit related to universal maximum speed/s.

This tells me that we are nearly on the same wavelength - I must say that I am fairly excited when I read things like this. Your suggested mathematics here is indicative of the concept I am trying to convey which tells me that we are edging our way to an understanding of what each other is saying.

It seems you have it right - PtA is representative so it is kind of abstract itself. PtA states are infinitesimal and we have a way around that for measurement purposes. PtA is not a term that I invented - James I believe invented it. I would imagine as long as the term is being used correctly that James would not have a problem with it being used but I can not speak for him. You are welcome for the responses but I have to say that I am really enjoying this conversation myself.

I have been known to add ambiguity to a situation - my apologies if I have done that on this occasion - from where I am sitting however we are understanding each other. One thing I have noticed is that “things” seem to repeat themselves on scales from one scale to another so I imagine that the general idea/concept of PtA/Affectance can also work from ‘below the microscopic’ to ‘above the macroscopic’ scales and not just an infinitesimal scale.

If you don’t mind a short interjection:

An “iota” is a particle of information. PtA has no particulate form, but Affectance, made from the changing and propagating PtA, does have a particle form:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6-_6__9ZvY[/youtube]

And particles are formed from non-particulate substance due to the following principle which applies to all forms of existence; physical, social, psychological, economic (as is being discussed in another thread), and information

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypDrw4CHhw[/youtube]

And an iota particle, a mental construct, is formed of PHT, Perception of Hope and Threat or “inferred relevance”. PHT is the mental form of PtA and the Potential for Action for conscious beings.

And also, it is accurate Principles and Facts that are eternal (“Conceptual Realm”), never changing. Anything physical is always undergoing alterations (“Physical Realm”). Or “Divine and Mortal Realms”, if you prefer Plato’s version.

And encode seems to be doing great so far. :sunglasses:

Armed with my 9th grade education I got a night security job at a hydroelectric plant some 18 years ago to cover slow time while self-employed, sitting in a 8’x10’ temporary guard shack from 6pm to 6am keeping eye on contractor parking lot, i.e., doing nothing for 12 hours a night. Was looking for answers to the theological problem I’d been working on for several years, so over those winter months dusted off the set of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles given me years earlier, and read most of both. Loved the stuff, though the archaic language was tough to steer through. Things started clicking, and found I loved reading metaphysics and philosophy even though I only comprehend about 30% of what I read. Since then, I’ve found myself swimming in a sea of ambiguity. I know ambiguity, En-De, and you ain’t it. I’m learning a lot from you, no worries…discussing abstract stuff is essentially a swim in Ambiguous Ocean, goes with the territory. :laughing:

I need to take some time and think through your and Mr. Saint’s last posts, this is new stuff for me. Thanks for your contributions. I’m willing to learn as long as youse are willing to teach.

The first thing that came to mind on reading this is that no, iotas of information are only particles as long as we’re discussing them; otherwise they probably exist as a waves (apologies for insertion of odd humor).

Back to sober discussion mode, it seems your presentation of PHT, PtA, Affectance and the way iotic information fits into these terms from your understanding seems to lead to an Idealist construct. This would explain my initial struggle to see the connections—I put things together from the “standard” realist perspective. If I understand correctly your explanation suggests a raw “stuff of existence” as a potential [non-particulate substance] available to intellectual operation to be made actual in either mental [iota of information; abstract entities] or so-called “material” [atomic/subatomic particles] form.

Is this heading in the right direction? And can you elaborate the idea of non-particulate substance? What is its form—pure energy? Where does value fit in?

NOTE: Your last post showed only large empty space between comments; wasn’t till I clicked “quote” button just now to respond (usually just copy/paste text) that I saw YouTube links. Comments above were without vantage point of seeing videos, so apologies if they talk past relevant points. Will watch vids soon to get a stronger feel for your position.

:laughing: IQM, Informational Quantum Mysticism.
… Seriously bright lad :sunglasses: [size=85](probably susceptible to leftist ideologies… :confused: )[/size]

Every ontology is an idealized map of the real terrain. I specialize in ensuring that the maps are accurate. I am an Ontologist (one who forms ontologies, hopefully accurate understandings of reality). The word “inform” refers to casting or forming an idea relating to reality. All information (the ideas) are a part of the idealization of reality. Actual physical reality has no information, merely the potential for someone to form ideas within their mind from it, “reality informs” and “reality in-form”.

Well, close. As Aaron explained, PtA is not a substance, but rather a situation. So it is still an existence, but not a substance. And by “potential”, we mean for example; an apple hanging from a tree, just about to fall. The apple alone does not possess the potential to fall. The tree does not pose the potential to fall (at the moment anyway). The gravitational field does not have any potential to fall. So how does falling get into the picture?

It is the combination, the “situation” that possesses the potential to actualize the falling of an apple. Every actualization of something is preceded by the potential to actualize that something. The situation must be right (by definition), else there can be no actual anything, because there would have been no potential for it, no possibility (in QM terms).

As it turns out in physical reality, it is only the potential (the PtA) changing that forms physical substance (the Affectance - ultra-minuscule electromagnetic pulses and waves - EMR, aka “light”). The initial potential was merely the potential to change potential - forming an affect upon potential. Then the changes in potential propagate as waves, “Affectance - Affect upon Affect”.

Another video that you might not see:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCbvMML95QM[/youtube]
Affectance Visualization

  • See I can do it too. :wink: There was no actual beginning except in the understanding of what must proceed what - the “light in the mind”, enlightenment.

Science used to speak of “electric potential fields” or “static electric fields” and measured it in voltage. They still speak of voltage, but avoid the idea of potential. They prefer speaking of “electromagnetic” substance as a fundamental substance, leaving people a bit confused about potential energy. The static electric field is what actualizes the electric current or effect. In general, scientists make for pretty poor rational philosophers.

By “non-particulate”, I mean “infinitely divisible” or a continuum. Potentials or situations don’t come in quanta (which is probably why the Quantum Magi don’t want to speak of it). And even the changing potentials, the Affectance, don’t have any particulate form until they amass or cluster into a traffic jam, known as a “subatomic particle” (hence “a mass particle”). The subatomic particle (in all its variety) is the actual smallest form of physical quanta (despite what the Quantum Magi like to preach).

Value is a mental construct, subjective and relative. Value is formed from a perception of hope and/or threat, PHT. If some situation appears to inspire hope, it is valued as positive. If a situation appears threatening, it is valued as negative. Positive and negative are always relative terms, both in the mental as well as the physical; positive “above” neutral and negative “below” neutral.

And just as PtA forms a propagating wave of changing PtA, PHT or Value in the mind forms propagating changes in value in the mind and consequential action (the physically existent). Such is witnessed as one thing becomes valuable merely because it is associated with or leads to another thing of value, on and on. Money is only valuable because it allows the purchase of something valuable that helps create a situation that is more valued, for whatever value related reason. All emotions, attitudes, inspirations, choice of relevance (“in-formation”), and meaning are formed from those actualizing, propagating PHT/Value waves within.

And That is where “meaning comes from”.

What browser are you using?

This is interesting stuff. Not sure how well I’m grasping, though. Watched the videos. Here’s briefly what I come up with:

PtA = abstract “stuff” of existence
Affectance = a particle or point, a concrete instance of PtA
Afflate = tiny amount of Affectance, more a “noise” or “puff” of Affectance, oblate in form [which suggests spatiality] but without a discrete border. This seems to have one foot in abstraction (puff, an almost incorporeal mist of Affectance) and one in the concrete (oblate). This is confusing to me. Can you elaborate?

Value = mental construct from perception of “hope and threat”. This is confusing, unless you just mean prescriptive value, because hope and threat has an emotive shared meaning element with good and bad. The confusing part is that descriptive value bears no such connection; I can’t see how 3+3=6 or the electrical panel in a house has a dual 240 and 120 VAC capability have any epistemic connection to “hope and threat”. They’re only statements of fact.

Also, what mechanism arranges an Afflate to “oblate” or determines that Affectance is spherical? Why not square or multiple configurations or why any geometric form at all?

Btw, I often use IE (old habit), which explains the blanks; hooked up to ILP with Firefox and now can see vids.

It’s good to get feedback, regardless. So Thx.

Wow, really? After all of that explanation and even pictures??
Hmmm… :confused:

I’m now dubious of any attempt to explain, perhaps Aaron can communicate it better.

Imagine a cloud in the sky. Then, with perfect eyes, you look at one small “hand full” of the cloud. And then, even further, your keen eyes focus upon only the tiny little droplets within that handful that happen to be traveling to your right. That would be analogous to an “afflate”. Of course at that same location, there are the droplets heading in all of the other directions also. Each of those directions would constitute another “cloud-afflate”. Ideally, there would be an infinity of afflates at that one location because there are an infinity of directions stemming from any one location.

Afflate Diagram.png

An actual rain cloud is formed of droplets, thus there are only a finite quantity of them around a location. So the analogy isn’t perfect. And also, droplets to not pass through each other, whereas propagating affectance pulses do pass through each other, but not without being slightly delayed due to the encounter.

A more detailed explanation of the concepts:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSFp7Hc_4Xw[/youtube]
Affectance Ontology Lexicon

So an “afflate” is merely a mentally chosen specific amount of the otherwise randomly scattering affectance field. The afflate is not a physically discrete entity, but a mentally chosen one, just like choosing a certain hand-full of that rain cloud and only the portion headed in a chosen direction. Afflates are used for the purpose of computer emulating a realistic affectance cloud by assigning a great many random directions and densities and then letting them flit about, interacting by the “Afflate Rules of Engagement” - the manner in which they interfere with each other’s propagation.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teddr0p__xQ[/youtube]
Rules of Afflate Engagement

The end result of a proper emulation is that traffic jams of flitting afflates form, “particles”. They form in 3 fundamental types: Positive, Negative, and Neutral. They behave exactly as known subatomic particles. They display all of the known characteristics of subatomic particle interaction. And all without ever being told to do so, rather each individual afflate is merely told to obey those Rules of Afflate Engagement. Such is serious rational evidence that physical reality is exactly as Affectance Ontology describes it, even more so than earlier attempts; Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum.

The word “value” has two uses. One is to refer to a measurement of something and the other refers to an assigned degree of significance or “meaningfulness”. I assumed that you were speaking of the latter of those, “meaningfulness”. The former seems a bit moot.

There is an analogy between the way actual physics functions and the way that conscious motivation functions. That is what I was talking about. The videos are about the physics. The analogies are for open discussion for those few interested.

As stated above, it is merely a mental choice. Other, more difficult to program, shapes could have been chosen. In the long run, they all get blended together into a field that behaves in a specific manner - that of physical reality.

Hmm… seems odd that IE can’t show youtube videos. :confused:

James

All of this of course is dependent on the way one looks at things to begin with.

I remember a while back being caught by this trap when trying to understand what you were saying to me. In the case of RM:AO we are basing everything around two realms and they are the physical and the meta or that being described and the description respectively.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

That being described is physical reality and the description is a meta-reality. Meta-reality has information. For me it just took a little while to adjust my focus before I could understand what you were saying. It is not just the arrangement of words but the visual and relative aspect of what you are saying that is to make sense.

This is why I find your videos and diagrams useful.

:-k

Perhaps starting out a little gentler is what is called for here . . .

Yes, knowing where to start with any one person is tough. :-k

I refer to them as the Physical Realm and the Conceptual Realm. They are independent as neither has affect upon the other, yet within each, everything affects something else.

But the conceptual realm is more than merely descriptions of the real. The conceptual realm is ALL concepts; ideas, imaginings, ideals, principles, strategies, maps, symbols, and thoughts - the things of form, “in-form-ation”. There is nothing physical within the conceptual realm and nothing conceptual within the physical realm.

What inherently distinguishes them is that the physical realm is made of the changing, specifically the changing of the potential to change, “affect upon affect”. But the conceptual realm contains no changing at all. All “affects” in the conceptual realm are more commonly called “relations”. If anything was to change in the conceptual realm, other concepts would necessarily have to change also; e.g. If a “straight line” is redefined such as to include curves (as some try to do with General Relativity) then a “square” would no longer have straight sides, because one is defined in terms of the other.

The two realms can be said to be “touching” when, and only when, there is a physical happening present that is also a concept. There are a great many of those. Mass gravitation, or Migration, is always occurring somewhere in the universe as a physically real event, Physical Realm. And such an action or principle of “mass-attraction” is also a concept and principle in the Conceptual Realm. Thus the two realms “touch”. The concept of mass attraction never changes and even though the mass attracting changes degree and location in the physical universe, the physical universe is never without it.

What anyone chooses to call a “realm of existence” is a bit arbitrary as long as it isn’t ambiguous. One can define a Perceptual Realm as all that is ever perceived, which would include partially the physical realm and partially the conceptual realm.

Much like choosing transforms or an ontology for sake of calculations, one can choose realms for sake of organizing their thoughts … as long as there is no ambiguity. It is merely choosing different symbols for a map of the same terrain.

That is true.

“Gentler”??? :-s :confusion-scratchheadyellow:

Anomaly654

Please see James’ previous posts first and my previous post - if you have already done this then disregard what I am saying in this sentence.

I have started a new thread which will serve as a gentler introduction to what James and I are talking about - you are welcome to ask questions there, in fact I encourage you to ask what ever questions you want - better to start out small however. We can keep discussing iotas in this thread along with meaning and how RM:AO fits in with it’s PtAs and affectance. You can find the new thread here.

Heads up . . . I start the new thread out with the rationale of why I stay involved with RM:AO.

:sunglasses:

Sorry, I apparently offended you with my interpretation of your view. For what it’s worth, I’ve found that my own understanding of things, being more abstract than most, is hard for people to grasp—not because it’s difficult but because its different, unorthodox. People aren’t used to thinking outside their box. I’m no different. You’ve presented a system that’s alien to my way of thinking. I studied your videos, most of them at least twice [don’t retain well and usually read everything beyond the Dick and Jane level twice before I get much of it], before I tried putting your ideas into my own realm of understanding—the only one I’m used to using, admittedly. Sorry this fell so obviously short of your expectations.

My thinking about reality is much different than yours, it’s not easy to suddenly move laterally when I’m used to thinking in my own straight line.

Whose mind? If the rules for ordering are a set of pre-existent forces, then this makes sense. If man’s, then it’s hard for me to imagine why each individual mind–given humanity’s natural penchant for dissimilarity–would automatically chose to form the same geometric symmetry, the same physical reality. This isn’t clear to me from your comment, “…each individual afflate is merely told to obey those Rules of Afflate Engagement” Who is doing the instructing?

Maybe as this view picks up speed you could prepare (or have prepared) some lower level explanatory videos/PDFs that can give those of us with less education—the informed layman—more opportunity to understand the concepts involved.

No, no. I am not offended, more disappointed in my ability to explain things. I can write what appears to me to be very clear but often to someone else, from a different vantage, it isn’t clear at all. I struggle with that issue, but consider it to be one of my own. Don’t worry about it. I just have to find the right words for the right people.

I can very much relate to that.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Again, I can relate.

I suspect that we are too greatly confusing different issues together. I had merely stepped in to attempt to clarify the fundamental physics of affectance and then show a little of the analogy to mental functioning, mental affectance - PHT and emoting.

An “iota” of information is analogous to a subatomic particle from which molecules (of information) are assembled. The issue of PtA and Affectance is on a lower level, beneath the formation of a subatomic particle and analogously, below the level of the formation of the iota. What is below the level of the iota is what is relevant to the mind, whichever mind (mental affectance - PHT and emoting). There must be relevant distinction in the perceived environment for a mind to identify a “thing of existence” or an “iota of information” (that “preexistent force for order”). Senses pickup the distinctions so as to form relevant thought concerning an environment so that reactions and plans can be made - survival.

The end point was that such subtle beginnings is from whence “meaning” comes (the thread topic).

Hopefully I didn’t confuse you even further. Sorry if I did. I’ll step back out and let Aaron take over from here. :sunglasses: