To believe that I am the greatest genius ever over the past 10,000 years is a bit much even for me.
QM represents something that would be the temptation for someone to promote if they had that “close enough” understanding and wanted to use it to create a world “religion” (a mass following).
The existing religions have all done that same thing, promote something that wasn’t real (but close) for the purpose of forming a collective following.
You are right that drones do not represent a particularly high technology except for the automated thinking that they are being given. They are teaching drones to coordinate with each other in packs and solve maneuvering problems as a group. If I can find it, I’ll link you to a video of some of the more modern day aerial ballets that they have gotten drones to perform all on their own. They can actually maneuver between obstacles and regroup on the other side and perform complex coordinated “dances” without an operator.
My point with the drone war issue is that people as drones are far more useful than people as intelligent self-protecting entities. Thus why not make them more drone like by using a “close enough” understanding of psychology and thus have an army of somewhat mindless drones obeying your commands? But then after that, with the technology of DNA retro-designing viruses and nano-technological implanting, why not make those drones far more effective and efficient? In the long run, what you call homosapian really doesn’t have a place in the world any more. In the Star Trek Next Generation series, they call the collective, “The Borg”.
What they are doing with society and have done many times in the past makes perfect sense, IF your goal is to make the entire world into one big single particle/society. But RM shows that particular goal to be a foolish undertaking. Not because it can’t be done, but because it must always eventually fail and for a precise and exact reason. On top of that, what you get by NOT trying to dominate the entire world, but merely teaching a few fundamental things and letting it go from there, is far, far greater in every respect. The only thing that you don’t get is a single extremely wealthy family of all powerful monarchs. And how I know that they are not “doing the right thing” is that it looks so extremely different than what they are currently doing. “Heaven don’t look nothin like this and don’t require no Hell.”
If they keep going in the direction they are going, they are going to create a very massively dense social particle, far more than any homosapian could live in. That particle is going to become unstable and breakup. But as it breaks up and after homosapian is no more, the life form that has been created to replace homosapian, will finally see the bigger picture and no longer attempt to be a single huge massive society under central control. The human body, as an example, doesn’t have a few nerves in it that make all the rules for all the other body parts to follow. And even if it did, the human body doesn’t consume the entire planet as a single organism. It stops growing and reproduces. Thus even evolution has shown that being a huge single organism is not what works.
Or you could think of it this way;
Imagine that you go back to the days when homosapian was very little more than an ape, not quite homosapian yet. You try to explain to them that IF they will organize in a particular manner, they will become stable as an everlasting type of creature, merely because of the way they start behaving. Of course, if they do not take that advice, they merely take the next million years to become what we now call homosapian, a dangerously clever ape capable of far more social functioning that produces abilities that the apes couldn’t possibly fathom and even the ability to destroy all life on the planet (don’t forget to explain to them what a planet is).
I see homosapian in that exact position now. IF homosapian would slightly change their behavior, homosapian would become a far more stable and eternally indomitable species. But if they don’t, they will merely take a few more hundred years to become a species that cannot tolerate homosapian “retrogrades”, has far more abilities than homosapian ever dreamt of, and eventually ends up behaving in that same recommended way anyway, that current homosapian could have done.
I very much agree that a lot of things are done, especially by governments, that are motivated by the need to gain or keep power. I believe the refusal of Science to acknowledge any idea that contradicts quantum mechanics (qm) is unfortunately an example. I like to believe both Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend are being proven right by the way science hangs onto qm.
As for whether there is any secret knowledge better than qm, you wrote this:
On 1, qm does not make sense all by itself, so there is no need to prove qm wrong. For example, things just don’t happen backwards in time.
On 2, there are lots of physics geniuses out there. It’s quite another issue whether they are bothering to spend time trying to create something better than qm. The social pressure to conform to qm is so strong that any physicists who are skeptical have probably given up. I am very glad Dr. Little was not put off by the social pressure and persisted for 30 years before he finally developed the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW).
On 3 and 4, I agree science treats qm a lot like a religion, and all religions like to preserve their following.
None of these points tells me there is anything better than qm out there, even in secret. All the power issues still apply, even if no one has any better knowledge than qm. I don’t see any weapons or hear any rumours of weapons that hint about any better knowledge. In my case, because I believe in TEW, I don’t see any new weapons that would be developed even if science suddenly converted to TEW. Converting to TEW would simply get rid of the magical expectations, like quantum computing and quantum encryption and other things.
So I remain skeptical that there is any better knowledge than qm out there (other than TEW and Rational Metaphysics). To me, since qm is a religion we have a choice of:
Physics is lazy and has stuck with qm because of social pressure, versus
Physics has a better theory in secret but wants to keep qm as “cover story”.
I think choice 1 is much more likely to be true. To me, choice 2 is far more complicated, and would have been true for 80 years, so the originators have died and several new generations “in the know” have kept it going. Seems a big ask to me.
From where would that social pressure to maintain conspicuous errors be coming? Scientists are not the one’s with wealth and influence. Who is getting payed for it being wrong?
If you were paying for some huge science dependent endeavor, would you be spending a lot of money and effort trying to shut down anyone correcting Science? I would think that you would be far more interested in ensuring that they were making no errors and keeping them on their toes. As you say, they are lazy.
If it were your financial officer who was possibly wrong, wouldn’t you be trying to make sure he wasn’t? And if you were in competition with the world, wouldn’t you want to ensure that they were making errors instead of you? Since the 70’s, a great, great deal of effort has gone into disabling the masses from being able to think, involving all forms of influence.
And religious incentives go on for many, many generations, thousands of years.
But you actually think that despite thousands of years and billions of people trying to understand the make of the universe, somehow only Dr Little or I actually accomplished it? Well, thanks for the compliment, but I’m not buying it, especially when I can see traces of it from even 6000 years ago.
We are discussing the idea the quantum mechanics (qm) is a “cover story” and that a better theory is kept secret. We both agree that qm does not make sense, and that criticising it is very difficult because of social pressure to conform to qm.
You wrote:
You seem to be implying that people with wealth in influence are protecting a secret better theory, and are behind the social pressure to keep qm.
I am arguing that social pressure maintains itself. I am thinking of Thomas Kuhn and his idea of a paradigm shift - the paradigms have tremendous power and people don’t give them up easily. Changing the paradigm is like a religious conversion, and is as rare. Without saying it, Kuhn was implying that Science behaves like a religion, and this agrees with Paul Feyerabend who argued that Science is much less rational than Science claims. So I am arguing that social pressure is something that humans just do - it seems to be programmed into the human brain. Resisting it is difficult and rare.
Although I do not support Rational Metaphysics (RM) I applaud you for being able to resist the social pressure and come up with something to new and thought provoking. It takes a lot of self confidence to do that. I am convinced that Dr. Little has got it right with the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) and his 30 year commitment shows his mental strength and sheer intelligence was not swayed by the masses. That’s how many things are achieved - by being able to think independently of the social pressure.
You seem to be arguing that the social pressure is orchestrated by a powerful minority, probably the military. I agree that the military are always a worry, because there is a risk of wanting power for the sake of power. Even with that, I think your argument is much less likely.
How much better is their theory? If they had something like the results you claim for RM, they would be far more powerful. I don’t see the military and political troubles of the world being well orchestrated, if that’s what they are. At what level do you see the orchestration? There has been political manipulation for thousands of years as you say, but it could have been plain old lust for power, rather than some secret better theory of the Universe.
We have drifted into sociopolitical and religious history aspects, a topic of which I expect that you have far too little serious education, yet you want for me to convince you of my stance.
According to the Aristotle mindset, there are only 3 means to convince anyone of something;
Logic: “This absolutely must be true if that is true”
Emotional appeal: “Isn’'t this an awesome theory”
Authority appeal: “Science says…, The Vatican says…, The Bible says…”
You have ruled out logic as anything convincing for you. And although you give a small amount of credit to authority, you support the underdog in this case (Dr. Little) and thus have negated authority appeal as well. That leaves only emotional appeal.
Emotional appeal, also known as “Pathos” and “the Devil”, involves psychological manipulations that are very common in the world today and pretty much run the show. Thus if I was looking merely to convince a lot of people, regardless of their understanding (ie. “supporters”), I would play the psychology game and present a case of utmost heartfelt appeal and be the envy of Satan. It is the way of the feminine, “softer and more pliable”. It is “romancing the stone”.
The time for that might come up. But this isn’t that time. I am not interested in being alluring, else I would be a very different persona online than I am.
So where you are leaving it is, “I want to believe what I currently believe”. Whereas I am only interested in adding to someone’s honest search for actual truth whether they wanted to believe that actual truth or not. I have had to face many basic truths that I seriously didn’t want to believe. But real truth means more to me than merely what I want to believe (much more). And right now, RM needs only those who are interested in the immutable facts. I am here to give those facts and explain them. But only to those who want truth enough to understand what is said. The others, regardless of why, shall remain blind and slave to their desires.
As far as the weaponry issue; In the 80’s I was working on weaponry at General Dynamics and I knew of weapons even at that time that were never brought to bear on Iraq. When Desert Storm started, ole Saddam Insane said it was going to be another Vietnam and War to end all wars. Just off the top of my head, I gave it 2 weeks. If I remember right, it actually only took 10 days.
Iraq couldn’t have taken on even one branch of the US Military, much less the entire force plus England and Israel. He had no idea at all of what he was up against. But that is the way Israel plays this game, luring an opponent into a pissing contest with someone immeasurable greater while giving them the impression that they have a good chance. The object was merely to annihilate one of their immediate neighbors. Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world. Now Israel does. Iran was an easy guess as to who’s next and for the exact same reason.
Now if they were using the exact RM, two things would have been different. First and foremost, they wouldn’t have the need to do all of that in the first place. But assuming that they are the morons that I give them credit for being, they would still have played it differently and by now, there would be no Iran to speak of.
But honestly, if they had the right RM and were not lusting for global domination, the entire world would still be in serious love with America and also there would be no wars, nor hardly any diseases by now, if any. No economic issues, no stagnation issues, hardly any issues that cause actual suffering, yet would be the wealthiest that the world could ever hope to become.
So I know that they do not have RM in its pure form and also that they are lusting for domination. The fact that they haven’t shown the available weaponry doesn’t say anything. If the USA were to truly bring to bear ALL that it really had, anyone would think that God Himself had come onto the battlefield. The battle wouldn’t be measured in years or even days, but merely in minutes. And that is without RM, but merely “close enough”.
Does it really take a genius to figure out what happens when you give big bombs to lustful people?
The only challenge they have today is how to kill off specific citizenry and races without disturbing the infrastructure utilities and without getting identified (blame shifting). And to give you an idea of the age of such techniques; how to do it all in general form is spell out in the Torah. But to understand that scripture requires study and understanding. The understandings don’t change in time (2+2 is eternally 4), they merely get more precise and up to date technologically. If Christianity had “prayed to” (sought of) God sufficiently, the “End of Days” scenario would not involve any catastrophes.
You are making the case that the USA military has a lot more weapons than they let everyone know:
You also wrote:
You have talked about Rational Metaphysics (RM) applying to a lot more than just physics. Does the “close enough” version of RM that the USA has extend to economics? To what extent can the powerful manipulate the USA and world economy?
I do not believe anyone has orchestrated the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 to 2009, and I believe a worse one is about to start (matter of days or weeks). I also believe it will strongly affect the USA military because the USA government is effectively going to go bankrupt in the next 4 years and be forced into spectacular budget cuts, especially to the military.
I mention this as an example of how I think the USA military can destroy things very efficiently and at the same time have no answer to economic problems. It won’t be the total end - drones are relatively cheap - but the big hardware (planes, ships, bases overseas, ongoing wars) takes so much money that they are going to be severely cut.
This allows a real time test of just how powerful their “close enough” version of RM is. In this area I think their weakness will be exposed for all to see very soon.
They would be damned fools if they didn’t.
You Never show all of your cards until the game is over, and maybe not even then.
Of course it does. But you misunderstand and will obstinately believe two things;
That the economic crisis isn’t intentional
That the USA military actually works for the USA.
You are right about that, although I give it until around December/January 2012/13.
It was designed as a 100 year project and it is right on schedule.
Not for the military. Again, you presume who it is that they are working for. The US Military has increased its income times 3 in the last year by selling arms to foreign nations and outsells ALL of them by times 3 or more. That is a part of how to get rich (thus economy related). That is a part of “RM-like” “close enough” formulae.
Their Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, out and out told the Senate that the military under Obama chooses what to do based upon the agreements with other nations and might or might not tell the Congress what they are doing and when. The technicality that has allowed such behavior is simply that during times of war (the “War on Terror”), the President is King.
They have no economic problems. The USA has economic problems, as does all of Europe, and for the same reasons.
You can’t establish a new order without disassembling the old order. That means CAUSE the old order to collapse. Else you could never arrange a new one. With what would you hold it together? Who would agree to anything if they didn’t have to?
For years, they have been giving away military vehicles and equipment to police departments throughout the USA. And they regularly decommission huge ships by sinking the entire thing into the deep ocean.
Does that sound like they are hurting?
What will be exposed is merely what I have already told you.
But, back to RM and TEW, I have a question for you;
Do you believe that any statement can be incontrovertible to the person who actually understands the statement?
An example might be something like, “1+1=2”.
Or even, “for there to be affect, there must be potential for affect.”
I was offline for a day because my wife and I held a huge all-day party, that was a big success.
You asked me:
This is epistemology, which is fun. We are talking about belief, and we all know there is a difference between belief and truth, and so none of us can be sure how well our beliefs stack up against reality. Someone who decided to only believe absolute truth would not believe in very much, and would get a lot of practice at dealing with unknowns.
So in the question you posed, a lot hangs on two words: “believe” and “understand”. There is always the usual problems with definitions and context, because 1+1=10 in base 2.
My answer is Yes, a statement can be incontrovertible to a person who actually understands the statement. Your example statement about Rational Metaphysics (RM) is a clear example - “for there to be affect, there must be potential for affect.”
Do I believe this statement is incontrovertible? Yes. I don’t think it says a heck of a lot, because to me, as soon as you use the word “affect” that already assumes the potential to affect. Hence for me the statement is a bit like “All bachelors are unmarried”.
I know you are trying to create some foundations for RM which is a Theory of Everything (or Grand Unified Theory). I am not attacking RM. I am saying I am fine with some things and this is one of them.
Your approach is to put an intense spotlight on the logic of RM. I see the value and the strength of that, and I see RM has having way more logic than quantum mechanics (qm).
I want to stand back and put a different context to this. You and Dr. Little share a few small things in common. Firstly, the idea that qm is clearly not logical. The second thing is that both of you are trying to show the logic of your theories, and use that to convince people.
Of course a good theory has to have logic - it’s essential. I also believe that people do not adopt a new theory purely on logic. To me, you can’t tell someone what to believe because it’s logical. To me, people choose to believe the logic they want. You’ve said as much before yourself.
Yes, it’s illogical for humans to do that. Welcome to the human race. I am not here on these forums to prove that the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is so logical that you must believe it. I am simply here to let people know they have a choice. I show the logical strengths of TEW, and hopefully that’s a selling point. Fundamentally, I believe I cannot directly convince anyone - no one can. People will simply choose to believe it. So my job is simply to offer a choice, and leave it to readers to do their own choosing.
I am saying all this because you seem to be concentrating on the logical strengths of RM, and at times you get annoyed when me or others do not immediately accept those logical strengths. I sense this is going to happen again real soon, because you will give one of the statements in RM that I think can be denied, and you won’t want to keep working with me on it.
I am hoping to put a new choice in front of you - don’t expect people to immediately say “Yes, that’s incontrovertible, so I’ll definitely believe it immediately.”. I am suggesting you tell people things and let them not be convinced for a while. Give them some time to make a choice to accept RM.
What do you think of my idea of “allow for delayed acceptance”? There’s a risk of course, that readers may never accept RM. I take that risk with TEW (it’s been almost the only reaction after all). If you choose “allow for delayed acceptance” we might progress a bit further in the foundations for RM.
I figured as much.
It is good to keep the ball of love rolling.
Several things…
Yes, it is epistemology (the construct of knowledge).
But I am not really talking about “belief” except in the sense of believing in an absolute or incontrovertible truth, but not any particular truth.
Some of us can actually be sure of how well our beliefs stack up against reality.
In a sense, that is what I am talking about; the ability to be 100% certain of something.
And yes, those who discover how to be absolutely certain of anything begin by having damn little to be absolutely certain of. In 1970, I decided to purchase a blank notebook and write into it only what was incontrovertible to me. For weeks, I couldn’t write anything at all. Finally, I found something to write. One abstract statement. That was it. But then such incontrovertible thoughts began to roll out a little more readily. During the following few days, maybe a week, I had seven incontrovertible facts.
I chose then to attempt to not say anything that wasn’t incontrovertible. That became a bit of an issue. I was in college at the time so was involved in communication with other students. I wasn’t in any way preaching anything, but I found myself not being able to discuss much of anything without immediately analyzing it for absolute truth. Women in particular were seriously not interested in such things. So eventually I let it go and got myself out of the habit of thinking in such absolute terms merely to allow the flow of conversation on a more suited level for my surroundings.
But even though I wasn’t concerned about absolute speech, I found that my list of absolutes was still growing in my mind. I found that I could discuss and debate topics well beyond my education level and end up being proven right. And to me, there was no question of being right. PhDs merely never learned how to ensure that they were right before they took on a debate. But they did learn who to not debate with. That didn’t mean that I was always initially right, so disagreement wasn’t an issue. It was merely that if I “argued” or “debated”, then they were going to lose, because I wouldn’t argue if I didn’t already know exactly why there was no alternative about me being right. The math in my mind was already done, else I wouldn’t argue.
That was good to see you say. I was a little afraid that you might come back with a common argument made at this site such as; “I can have one apple and one cloud. That doesn’t make two apples nor two clouds. So, ‘No’”
Or, less common, “1+1=2 is really only like 99.999… probably true. One can never know anything 100%.”
Both of those types of people are programmed to inject doubt into all things. It is a common oppressive social strategy. Attempting to reason with them is a bit pointless. They are “drones” (another rather interesting topic on another forum).
Actually I am not “trying to create a foundation”. That foundation is already there and has been for a long time. I have merely been trying to communicate it with you. Realize that even though RM was proven more than a year ago, you are actually the only person I have attempted any explanation of it to. So what I am “attempting” in effect, is an exploration in ways to communicate it.
I had mentioned earlier that RM is founded in Definitional Logic. And as you noted in the examples, such logic is incontrovertible and quite often tautological in nature (depending on how clear the mind was). Because the entirely of RM is all about Definitional Logic, the entirely of RM is incontrovertible up to the point where it is proposed as a true ontology of the physical universe. At that point, comparisons and verifications have to be made between the RM ontology and what we believe about the real world. It is at that point that proof gets made or theory gets assessed. In the case of RM, it became a pretty easy proof and thus no longer a theory. But such proofs (being a lack of alternatives) also involve logic. So yes, RM and logic are intertwined through and through (as all metaphysics should be, hence, “Rational Metaphysics”).
But the question has to be raised as to why anyone would support anything other than what was knowably true. If they didn’t believe that anything could be knowable concerning the subject, then it stands to reason that they would support their best guess. Thus if RM is adequately communicated, it becomes the “best guess” simply because it cannot be wrong. It is “incontrovertible” due to its very foundation of tautological Definitional Logic and to where that eventually leads. But to get to where it leads of course, means being able to follow the logic (not the Science at that point). It is merely concepts and words until a full understanding is formed. THEN we get to discuss the Science and the probability of its accurate presentation of the physical universe.
That last part is kind of where you are wrong. As I explained before, I am not “trying to convince people”. I am discovering communication techniques involving the very foundation, the logic.
I agree that they “do not” typically. But would you refuse logic if you clearly saw it? Logic is of no usefulness if it cannot be seen or communicated, hence the need to discover how to communicate the Logic. How to impassion people into a supportive posture is far easier and being done by everyone on the planet concerning every imaginable issue.
Much earlier in this thread, I presented the following pictorial;
To which you replied, “what are those orange squares?”
To your mind, that was a reasonable question. But to me, after all of the discussion we had had, I couldn’t imagine how anyone could question what those squares represented (never mind the fact that it says it right on the pic). But what is, is what is. And what is, is that you had question even after a lengthy prior explanation. Thus that pic, for whatever reason, is useless.
What you are talking about is what I refer to as “Impedance Matching”, it involves timely, strategic diplomacy. RM describes it in detail (and thus the incontrovertible logic and rationality behind it). But note that you are still presuming that I am talking to “people”. I am not. I am talking to you. Do not defer your mind and method of belief to that of “the people”, else you have no mind at all.
Something I had written on this subject long ago… Psychological Momentum. That piece doesn’t actually involve RM directly, but it should ease your mind a bit about my understanding of the need to go at a proper pace IF my intent is merely to “convince”. Related to this subject and since you seem to have an interest in psychology, something I just posted, Drones on Site. What is often very clear to me is not always clear to many others.
If I were to apply a full blown RM effort to “convince”, the convincing would be as incontrovertible as RM.
RM is the “immutable object”. Don’t be in a rush to put it into an “irresistible motion”.
I liked the two links. The Psychological Momentum description is good, because it acknowledges the functional structure of the human brain. There are three parts:
Reptilian Brain - automatic reactions, like reflexes
Limbic system - emotional responses
Neo-cortex - reasoning and logic
Yes, something must appeal to all three to really take hold. The Socionomics people that I follow effectively say that economic decisions are almost always controlled by the Limbic system, and hence are emotional, even if our Neo-cortex finds a way to rationalise the emotional decision. The Socionomics people are really saying that humans form a herd and show herd behavior because of the emotional connections between us. Everyone agrees that “following the crowd” is a silly idea in economics, but that’s what most of us do most of the time. Booms and busts are the result, and no government regulations will ever stop them happening, because people will always have Limbic systems.
The Drones on Site link is a good description of people participating in debating forums like this one. I have had debates terminated by attack drones who were clearly approved of by the site administrators. There seems to be evidence there are a lot of “silent viewers” out there who don’t actually post much, and I think that’s mainly because they are very aware of the drone responses that happen if you do. I like to think the “silent viewers” make their own minds up, although I have no proof they do that.
I asked question about the diagram “High Potential Raises Low” because I didn’t want to be assuming and guessing. I see asking dumb questions as a useful thing to do, because I often get surprising answers.
I imagine that you are showing that areas of high affectance will change the levels of areas of low affectance nearby, and hence there is actual effect. What is not immediately obvious is that “Direction of increasing Affect Component” - the arrows seem to point far beyond the destination of the change in potential affectance. Is it merely showing the direction of the change in potential affectance? The dashed lines down to zero affectance - are they simply showing that the areas of potential affectance are higher than zero? If they are the simple ideas I am imagining I think the diagram is making them more complex than they need to be.
So I’m just verifying my understanding. You seem to have given me a “fail” mark in understanding your ideas, whereas I’m just being very cautious.
Oh you just wait until you see the report card I send to your mother.
Next question; IF RM is held to be ONLY the incontrovertible statements and reasoning, doesn’t that mean that RM itself is incontrovertible?
Note that I said IF…IF…IF RM holds ONLY to those statements.
And my point concerning that pic and those arrows was going to be that once such a direction begins, it cannot ever stop in that direction. The affecting continues regardless of the potential encountered along the path. Of course if that changing reaches a max rate, such a change is slowed down to allow time to pass, but it never stops. It is from that effect that the actual elemental waves form. But those waves are not sinusoidal. They are somewhat chaotic or ripply/noisy. I didn’t get into the exact logic of why they must always continue, but that is where I was headed.
I want to emphasize again that for the reasons I have given, I am not trying to get you to “support” RM. But there is something to think about;
What I am expecting (assuming that saying this doesn’t change it) is that even if RM is incontrovertible to you and you thus can not and will not argue with it, you do not want to support it.
But IF… IF… IF RM proposes nothing that isn’t incontrovertible for what reasoning would you not support it? …especially since it would incontrovertibly blow QM out of the water.
This is an issue of personal psychology.
You asked a question about Rational Metaphysics (RM):
The answer is Yes, of course. This is basic logic: if each step is logical and the steps link together then the result of the steps depends on the starting point - any assumptions.
As you know, some things that you claim are incontrovertible are what I think of as assumptions, and I don’t choose those assumptions. That’s the gap between our viewpoint.
If I ever did choose the RM assumptions, and I saw all the other logic and accepted it, then I would accept RM. It seems unlikely at the moment, because I prefer the assumptions of the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW), and TEW has the magic markers that are not compatible with RM. If there was a way to reconcile the two, I may yet be an RM believer. Either that or you find a way for me to give up the TEW assumptions.
You wrote about the graphic “High Potential Raises Low”:
Surely, if the affectance potential encounters an area of lower potential, then it raises that area of lower potential and we see some actual affectance materialise. Couldn’t that process mean that the potential is then used up? Might that potential then disappear? I only ask because of the words “cannot ever stop in that direction”. Surely potential can burn itself out?
Can you see now why the communication of those premises would be an important part of even gaining supporters?
Until I can properly communicate that such premises are necessarily true, there isn’t much point in trying to get a lot of supporters who might have accepted RM based on who knows what kind of reasoning.
So the remaining question is really, “which premises do you think are merely assumptions?” 1) Existence is defined by that which has affect? {although that is really a declarational definition} 2) For there to be affect, there must be potential for effect (a situation that allows for affect to take place)? 3) No two points of potential can be infinitely identical? (in reality, the probability is not precisely “0.0…”, merely “0+”)? 4) A volume of space can be defined as an infinite number of infinitesimal points distributed throughout 5) By definition, a higher potential actualizes by affecting a lower potential to a higher state and visa-versa. 6) Affecting requires time? 7) Any affect is defined not only by the potential causing it, but the direction in which it actualizes. (affect comes with both potential and direction)
Those are the primary premises.
Are any of those what you would call “merely assumptions”? Understand that definitions are not assumptions, but declarations of concept. I can reduce them all down to definitions and thus incontrovertible, but I would hope there would be no need.
Now in addition (and I’m not sure this part is even necessary) is the issue of infinite discontinuity. I can provide logical proof concerning that as well if need be. It too can be reduced down to merely definitions.
The “potential” gets “used up” in creating the affect. It is the affect that has direction and never stops affecting. The affecting is the actual physical universe, not the potential to affect. A potential is merely a situation, not a physical “thing”. A box sitting on a table has a low potential for falling. Remove the table from under that same box, and it has a high potential for falling.
I thought a long time about the foundations of Rational Metaphysics (RM) and where I think the assumptions are. Since I am a supporter of the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) it was a fairly challenging comparison. The foundations of RM are:
The above list contains at least one assumption: that there is only one way point A can affect adjacent point B (by the difference in potential to affect). In TEW, there are two ways: an elementary wave going from A to B, and by the presence of absence of a particle at A. It may be necessary for the particle be traveling from A to B (along the elementary wave going from B to A).
Even if you do not accept TEW, the idea that there is only one way for point A to affect point B is an assumption in itself. It is an unstated assumption, and is hence the most critical.
That will probably make you very annoyed, because you don’t see a reason why I think it is an assumption or any logic behind my stance. I believe in TEW because I find the evidence given in the book overwhelming, especially the wave behavior of matter which is straight forward and sensibly explained, unlike quantum mechanics (qm).
I know you criticised TEW and believe you have found show-stopping flaws, so this is not a credible reason from your point of view. I am confident that the outstanding questions on TEW are simply a matter of more research.
So there we are, I see an assumption in the foundations of RM. I might only change that if I find out more about RM, especially the wave behavior of matter. You make many claims but I have no way of knowing if any of your claims about RM are true.
Emmm… do you see the word “only” in there somewhere? I can’t find it. What number was that?
It seems that you keep trying to jump to the conclusion, compare it to what you already want to believe, and then decide whether or not to accept the premises.
Those premises say absolutely nothing about what can ONLY occur regarding anything. So could you try to re-evaluate them based on what they actually say, not what you think they might later imply?
Is TEW incontrovertible?
As far as I can see, TEW has absolutely nothing to do with those premises for or against except by your defensive conjecture.
Can you get more “overwhelming” than incontrovertible?
What I see you doing rather regularly is seeing that something about RM MIGHT imply that TEW MIGHT be wrong, and thus you instantly reject whatever gave that sign.
Does actual Truth mean nothing?
I am talking merely about the initial premises. Where they lead to later is another issue. The point isn’t whether RM ends up where you want it to be, but whether each step in itself was incontrovertible. Nothing at all was said about “this can only be affected by that in this way”. That “assumption” was merely an assumed assumption on your part. And frankly the difference between RM and TEW on that issue is totally irrelevant. It wouldn’t affect either one of them. They could both be right. You are making an invalid dichotomy and false conflict of concern.
The process is to build a conceptual model and THEN see how it compares to REALITY, not to other preferred models.
You are being a priest condemning Galileo for implying that the Earth is not the center of the universe.
The point about the priest and Galileo was that the priest could take action against Galileo to stop Galileo’s views being heard. I disagree with Rational Metaphysics (RM), but I am not trying to stop you being heard - on the contrary I wish you would say more.
I am giving my position on the foundations of RM. If RM later convinces me that the elementary waves can be explained in an RM context, then great. For now, I do not see how RM and TEW can be compatible, so I am being clear on my choice.
Why am I convinced that RM implies there is only one way for point A to affect adjacent point B? Because of the statements. Let’s say point A can affect point B by method X and that X is not Potential-to-Affect (PtA). This means that there was affect but not potential for effect which contradicts statement 2. Since X cannot be anything other than PtA then there is only one way for point A to affect point B.
You are doing it again. I didn’t ask for your choice. I didn’t ask for you to compare RM to TEW. What I did ask for is that you examine those 7 statements as they stand, regardless of what QM, TEW, the Bible, or anything else might say and tell me if any of them state something that could possibly be false merely by what they say in the context in which they were presented. They are concepts, not physics theories. Please stop trying to jump ahead into physics theories.
I shouldn’t have to explain this, but since you seem to be stuck on it;
I assure you that Dr Little would have absolutely no objection to those statements. You seem to have gotten the idea in your head that an “affect” is something different than something that might exist. The very first definition of existence proclaims that if anything exists, then it has affect. Are you trying to say that a particle can exist at a point and have no affect or receive no affect? I have no doubt that Dr Little would disagree with you on that. If a particle is at a point, the particle IS the affect. And as such must have the potential to affect. The two theories at this point do not disagree in the slightest. Nor does anything in Science (with the possible exception of quantum mysticism pseudo-science).
So again, please examine those statement AS THEY STAND, regardless of your conjectures about other theories and determine if they are incontrovertibly true. It shouldn’t take more than a few minutes.
We are talking about these foundations for Rational Metaphysics (RM):
About my last post, you wrote:
The words “volume of space” are a physics theory to me. If you are considering this applies to all the areas that RM applies to, then that’s of no interest to me at this time. I am only interested in RM as applied to physics, and any physics theory must be compared to reality.
In my last post I showed a proof that RM implies that one point has only a single method to affect another adjacent point - Potential-to-Affect. To me, that is clearly an assumption for RM in physics. I find it a fascinating assumption, because it’s not obvious when you first read the statements.
The only way for me to accept RM in physics is for Potential-to-Affect to reproduce both the methods that the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) has - elementary waves and particles (which is an assumption for TEW). It remains faintly possible RM in physics might do it, but it will need a lot more information about RM to convince me.
