As I’ve been ill and had to take care of things, I haven’t had a lot of time to be here, but I’ve read everything, thought about it, and one issue in particular stayed with me, as it seems to be crucial for the certainty that absolute homogeneity is impossible, on which RM:AO is built.
I don’t understand this. Zero divided by seven is still zero. Just as seven times zero is zero.
In other words, performing operations on nothing at all simply has no consequences.
So, I don’t understand how the amount of absolutely perfect alignments matters if they are absolutely perfect.
The same issue. If every infinitesimal deviates by absolutely zero from its predecessor, then the accumulative deviation is still zero.
Certainly not, as value is defined as “that which results in the self-valuings perpetuation”.
What is harder to define is the self-valuing. For example, a human can self-value on different levels, levels which can contradict each other.
To wit: a human can sacrifice his life in order to leave his self-valuing intact, under the principles of honor or love. In such a case the self-valuing is defined as the persons character, legacy, acts, not the life of his body. So in this case, it is the image the person has of himself that dictates certain values.
“Value” itself is not prior to reality. It’s always a condition of something to which it is of value. The interaction of the valuer and the valued is what forms reality.
Only on a very advanced stage does self-valuing become experience, and are values consciously held.
I don’t care much for the misleadingness as it is perceived here - I have plenty of people in my environment who understand the concept perfectly, and are already working with it on a daily basis.
Silhouette - the solipsist principle is accepted in VO to the extent that the valuing subject dictates what exists to him. You appear to be content to use the term experience as an umbrella concept and be done with it, not think about it in scientific terms. I’m not, I want to know what is happening. It’s not that I don’t care that it is my conception of what is happening, it’s just that this is overwhelmingly obvious. Couple that with the fact that my basic conception of the universe as behaving in certain ways correlates perfectly with all the conceptions of it I’ve ever come across, and solipsism (the idea that everything is an experience because I can’t say anything about anything without being partial to my expressed perspective) and you can see how it’s not very interesting beyond being irrefutable.
VO extends beyond solipsism without letting go of the principle of perspectivism. It allows that, regardless of anyones or my experience, there might exist certain things, things that do not experience. So we can practice science with it, we can seek for consistencies. And the first consistency we can observe is that whatever does or might exist, must be so constituted that it selects its interactions with anything else in such a way that it perpetuates itself. Else it would instantaneously cease to exist.
What people on ILP (unlike those I talk to in real life) generally fail to see is that when I use the word “select”, I mean it like “water selects the lowest point” and not “water has a good inner conversation about it and then decides to go for the lowest point”. Consciousness is a local and rare by-product of the workings of the universe, and so is experience. The concept experience requires the concept consciousness (and vice versa) to make sense.
In a similar fashion, the term “value” is not meant to refer to consciousness or sentience, but to reflect the things to which entities respond. “Value-response ontology” is a reasonable proposal.
Well logic ought to allow this if “what is” (or “A”) is “the inexplicable experience of what is”.
If that were the case, then both statements would be identical.
And minus the adjective “inexplicable”, and changing “is” to “exists” this actually is the case. It would then read:
“A ≡ what exists/existence”. And,
“A ≡ the experience of what exists”, which can be reduced to “A ≡ experience” by eliminating the tautology, to amount to Existence ≡ Experience. Which is Experientialism.
Its overwhelming obviousness is because it is true. My goal is to say only that which is true is true, and nothing else. That is all Experientialism is intended to do - be irrefutable. “What is happening”, which is what you want to know, is a further question that can take as many forms as there are value sets. There is no truth to it, only value-based interpretation. This is important, I agree, but no true explanation will ever come from it. There are no true values.
It seems like you’re searching for truth by looking for what interests you. This is unacceptable to me. Experientialism highlights this fact, and puts values in their place - as values and nothing more. More interesting and informative =/= more true.
But consciousness is not local and rare to Solipsism, quite the opposite. It cannot be because the workings of the universe are derived from experience, they are not the cause of experience. One simply needs to meditate on how they arrived at their understandings of the universe in the first place (by referring to experience) to know which came first. And then they need only consider how absurd it is to then reverse the cause and consequence.
I agree that consciousness requires experience and vice versa - I would say they are synonymous with one another, and with existence also.
Then I am relieved.
It is dangerous territory though, even if those who you talk to in real life “get it”, to reach out for terminology that fits in with the word “value”, which is firmly entrenched as an aspect of human consciousness, and then say it has nothing necessarily to do with human consciousness. This is metaphor, which may benefit from the enhanced potency of poetic description, which engages the imagination, but it is not precise and incontrovertible. Our values differ here.
Once defined by the word “spirit”, and “behavior”, both of which refer to the valuing reactions or PHT of a creature (or anything living).
I hope everything turned out okay…?
In common or standard mathematics, there is a common misunderstanding that goes as irrelevant in normal uses (as happens in all common thoughts on all subjects).
In math you are told that division is the operation of diving something into equal parts. And you are told that multiplying is an operation of adding equal parts a specified number of times or how many times equal portions can go into the whole portion. Thus you have “division” and “times” operators. Those are definitions. But then you are told that multiplication is merely the reciprocal of division and vsvrsa. And in normal usage, that is true. But it is not entirely true.
Let’s say there is an absolute law in the land requiring that in your basement, you must always have exactly and only one half of what you have in the rest of your house, else your head gets chopped off. One day, your neighbor gets ticked off at you and decides to exact his revenge.
One day when you are not at at home, he breaks into your house and removes literally everything out of your house. Of course, when you get home, you call the police. They come, investigate, and arrest you. In court you first argue that it wasn’t your fault only to find that the law is absolute and it doesn’t matter who’s fault it was. But then the prosecutor asks you if prior to the apparent theft, you had the proper exactly half of your goods replicated in your basement and you provide a sufficient list as evidence. Then proclaim that your entire house got entirely emptied.
Finally the prosecutor asks what is in your house now. You reply, “nothing”. “Nothing at all?” he requests. “Absolutely nothing at all”, you reply fearing to make it clear that there could be nothing to have half of still in the basement. At that point, the prosecutor curiously rests his case and demands maximum sentence for breaking the sacred law.
The Judge ponders and whispers to the attorneys for a moment and then announces his verdict;
[i]“By the defendant’s own admission, he has stated that it was impossible for him to have obeyed our most sacred law. In stating that there was truly absolutely nothing within the house, it is clear and unquestionable that he could not have had exactly half of that amount in his basement as required.”
“Guilty!”[/i]
You can multiply absolutely nothing by any “real” number and still have merely zero. But you can’t divide absolutely nothing into exactly two halves of nothing. Reach into an empty bucket and bring out into your hand only exactly half of what was within it.
Or you can think of it in more relevant terms. Just as an infinite number is the “inconceivably large number” that couldn’t be larger, an infinitesimal is the “inconceivably small number” that couldn’t be smaller.
In the example provided (perhaps not the best explanation for all of this), we have point A, B, and C. And no matter how close in alignment C is, B must be exactly half or less in tolerance. If point C is one infinitesimal within perfect alignment, point B must be half of that. If point C is said to be in absolute tolerance with exactly zero error, you are required to divide it in half.
In hyperreal mathematics (named by Edwin Hewitt in 1947 after logically proven the validity of algebraic operators on infinities), in order to divide an infinitesimal, you have to shift cardinalities from the standard infinity squared range (noted by Georg Cantor) into at least the infinity cubed range - a number inconceivably smaller than the inconceivably small number that was itself inconceivably smaller than an inconceivably large number = infA^3.
In logic and math, as long as there is a value, it can be divided into equal portions that represent exactly half of what it was. But at that point wherein something must be absolute zero, it is impossible to divide it into exactly half portions.
The issue is that point B’s positional error must be lessor than whatever point C’s error is. You can’t get less than absolute zero and thus point B cannot exist (as normally defined). The only way for any such point B to exist (which it must) is for it to be changing position all of the time.
Between any two points, is an infinite number of changing points. Or as Louis de Broglie put it, “an electron doesn’t actually have a position” because he was thinking of an electron as a singular point (one of the ontology mixes of the age).
Every prior point must be twice as good as the proceeding point. How can you get twice as good as absolute zero error? Twice zero error is merely zero error, the same, not twice as good or half of the zero error.
Back to the magnets. The more perfectly aligned the top magnet, the even more perfectly aligned the magnet under it must be. If the top is absolutely perfect, the one under it cannot be more perfect than absolutely perfect. In order to stay centered, it must always be in transit across the center and accelerating or decelerating.
Perhaps a more complex perspective would be easier to grasp for some.
If your ontology involves a declared minimum distance of one infinitesimal and you are dealing with a three dimensional universe, you have a problem to resolve.
If every point in space is represented by a small sphere of infinitesimal diameter (or a Plank length if you are a quantum geek), you must connect each diameter with another, each sphere with its surrounding spheres. But if you try stacking unit spheres around a unit sphere, you will find that the outer spheres cannot all be touching. Yet they are required to be touching else the declared infinitesimal distance between centers cannot be achieved. If you surround a unit sphere with others, there will always be a gap. You can put 12 around it with a gap (or many smaller gaps), but not 13.
Thus the only means to have such an ontology is to have the distance referred to as “infinitesimal” as a changing distance wherein no two infinitesimals can be the same, the distances are “smears”, not fixed, uniform lengths. In effect, the infinitesimal spheres are always in flux, not really having a fixed diameter. In that way, any one sphere can be touching all other spheres and all of them touching each other at the same time. And that is the only way to be logically consistent.
So again, you have the geometric situation of having to have what is normally thought of in our macroscopic world as a “fixed” form, as rather a randomly smearing form, without fixed size or shape. The sizes must always be varying and even the varying must be varying and again and again.
It is logically impossible to even think of a fixed shape in the sub-particle universe (“subspace”). Platonic forms cannot exist on the ultra small scale and thus cannot truly exist on any scale. They are imaginary constructs just as the square root of minus one. And no more real than a square circle. If you were somehow raised on the subspace scale, you would not even be able to imagine a cube or sphere, or any Platonic form. You would know nothing but clouds (much like Sil).
And btw, understanding this could have provided for much higher resolution CRT screens back in the 80’s than the data provided. If they were smart enough to, in effect, randomly vibrate the precise location of each pixel at a speed too high to be visually perceived (easy with a CRT), the effect known as “pixelation” would never have been a problem. An angled line would not be perceived as a stepping series of dots, but rather as a smooth incline even though the data driving the CRT provided only steps. The mind would do as it always does, present an abstract picture to the consciousness that isn’t literally what it saw. In effect, the resolution would be increased without increasing the resolution or pixel density. The principle is the same when the mind imagines a straight line at any angle. The mind can never actually picture reality.
In that pic, you can see that the distance from B to E is always going to be half of the distance from C to D. No matter how tall the triangle is, B-E must always be 1/2 of C-D.
But what happens when we gradually reduce the height of CD through absolute zero;
The entire time DC is being reduced, EB remains at exactly 1/2. But somehow, magically at exactly absolute zero the number suddenly changes for that single point. Either the distance EB instantly becomes exactly equal to DC or, defying logic, EB is only half of absolute zero. Either case is irrational.
In professional mathematics, the term “0/n” is undefined and the term “n/0” is indeterminate. Neither case makes rational sense.
So where does that leave the absolutely straight line concept? - Irrational, an oxymoron. It is an issue of ontology and the fact of it plays into Relativity, Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Physics, and Affectance.
So I managed to outsmart myself again (and everyone else).
Well, this is actually a theory I’ve come up with before, and even posted about on this forum. It just dawned on me how it applies to VO, RM, E and any other theory of the same type, even itself.
All theories of this type are theories about ultimate fundaments. And what they all have in common is, obviously, that they involve reflections on the arrival at an answer. They all start from the point of thinking, and work “backwards” (to use a linear timeline) in order to reach the end answer, and then they reverse this process to say that the answer is the origin, and the original question is the end result - what we have now at our current point of thinking.
But another problem with this is that these theories tend only to focus on one aspect of the reflections that occur in order to arrive at an answer:
E takes the common element of (experiential) data being used in order to come up with an answer.
RM takes the common element of logical reasoning being used in order to come up with an answer.
VO takes the common element of values being needed in order to want to come up with an answer.
The end result in each case is that, taking aspect of such reflections, we arrive at same aspect of such reflections as the ultimate fundament.
RM takes reason, and ends up with reason, VO takes values, and ends up with values, and E takes experience, and ends up with experience. Descartes took thinking and ended up with thinking (cogito ergo sum). Theistic religion takes God or gods and ends up with God or gods.
What other permutations might there be?
Another theory I’ve already brought up on this forum: question the questions.
RM is concerned with “how?”. VO is concerned with “why?”. E is concerned with “what?”. Another question word is “who?” (and a corresponding theory of ultimate fundaments might answer this with God or gods - though “which?” often comes up when it comes to this approach). “Where”, and “when” are seemingly less valuable questions (though still covered by theories such as the Big Bang etc.), presumably because of their fundamental implications of relative position, when an absolute answer is what people are after when they come up with these theories.
So the reality is we need to consider all aspects of questions of ultimate fundaments if we are going to come up with a more encompassing answer. Perhaps that just leads us back to Descartes’ “thought” in general. Though maybe what we’ve gained in knowledge since then is more insight into each particular specific type of approaching this goal, and now we can recombine them all to reconcile the general with the specific.
Moreover, we need to be conscious of the fact that we are merely choosing a start point, and in a roundabout way coming to the conclusion that this is the finishing point. Which of course we then invert so that the start point is the end point and the end point the start point - even though they were the same thing all along. I will call this “Preposterism” (from the combined prefixes “pre-” and “post-”, which is of course where we get the word “preposterous”. Another, more tongue-twisting candidate I considered was “Orioccidentalism”, which combines the Latin to rise with to fall, which is of course where we get the words “oriental” and “occidental” - the sun “goes down” in the East and “comes up” in the West).
And finally, you will notice that this theory starts and ends with itself too - an inescapable consequence of all questions of ultimate fundaments.
Something that the world of mathematics seems to have overlooked;
Absolute infinity cannot logically exist physically nor conceptually.
For the exact same reason, absolute zero cannot exist physically nor conceptually… for qualities.
Absolute infinity is a conceptual impossibility. Absolute zero is exactly equal to 1 / (absolute infinity) = an irrational concept.
One can have absolutely zero of a quantity. But one cannot have absolutely zero of a quality.
Potential is a quality, not a quantity.
The reason that math runs across problems with infinite and infinitesimal concerns is that math is all about quantities, and only partially applicable to qualities (good for quantitative estimations).
Quantum physics is the ontology of a quantized reality and is a logically broken ontology, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t useful for many kinds of quantitative estimations of reality. Classical physics was about qualitative reality, but at that time made the understandable error of including “rigid bodies”, quantitative entities. So Classical physics was a logically broken ontology also.
RM:AO has no quantitative entities… no fixed quantities, including “absolute zero”.
Even the things that I refer to as “points in space” can only logically exist as a changing of location, infinitesimal smears.
I might add that value is an issue of quality, not quantity.
And thus VO must remain quantitiless, else also be logically invalid, aka “broken ontology, BO”.
James - after some days of meditating on all this, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that I understand it. It’s very powerful. I’ve not come across an understanding of physicality that is so inevitable once it takes hold. I can see the afflate dynamics play out in my mind, I can see how substance arises out of the logic - the logic fleshing itself out. Fascinating.
Also, yes, value as much as self-value is independent of quantity. Self-valuing is necessarily “vague” in terms of quantity and precise location - quantizing is an efficient form of valuing, but it does nothing to clarify the principle of self-valuing/value. The quality must precede quantity, and the quality must be some form of affectance in order to be recognizable, either as “natural reality” - concrete experience, or as isolated quantities and their abstractions - concepts, objects, things.
Well great, maybe soon we can get started on the fun stuff. If you think that is fascinating, just wait until you read this…
One of the things that I alluded to at NWO, without attempting details, is that RM:AO understands things like ESP and the things normally referred to as “magic”. RM:AO allows a person to see hidden intelligence, even the intelligence behind or under the microscopic levels in physics. It all gets very complicated, but there are really only two basic principles involved. But as zinnat can testify to, I always need to verify the clarification (Clarify, Verify, Instill…). So let me make a new assertion and see if you can explain why it must be true using merely what we just discussed.
We have discussed how an affect travels from point A to B to C and so on. And from that how the speed of light becomes fixed at less than an infinite propagation speed. But now listen to this;
Every single point in space is necessarily already affecting every other point throughout all space.
That is to say that if I sneeze, even though thousands of miles from you, before I can even reach for my handkerchief, that sneeze has already affected you.
See if you can tell me why that absolutely must be true.
And btw, Jakob, all of this relates back to that subject once mentioned concerning analog vs digital computers. By the time a digital computer has calculated the precise time required for an electron to travel one centimeter, an analog computer could have yielded a more precise answer 10,000 times. In fact, a digital computer could never exactly answer the question. But on the other hand, the analog computer could never remember the answer it gave.
The best I can come up with is that due to the perfectly subtle responsiveness of the field of affectance (perfectly subtle due to the infinitesimals it is composed of), even though much of it will be delayed and clogged into particles, much will also propagate close to the maximal rate of propagation, and do this in all directions.
Nearness is determined by the degree of immediate affect, but remote affect is ever present from all points to all points. Every affect is necessarily always affecting all other affects all of the time and simultaneously. Nothing can truly hide from anything. The greatest degree of isolation is gained merely by reducing discernible affect, the degree of affect. With regards to absolute zero time, a single instant, the entire universe is all a single point with no distance involved.
The Shaolin priest calms the inner waters merely to discern subtle remote affects (consciousness), often before an adversary has deduced his own intentions. By the time the adversary chooses an action, the priest is no longer there.
That is the first principle, involving extreme awareness and statistical probability.
The other is called “Entanglement”; "Equal cause + equal treatment = equal effect", “If I were formed as he and in his shoes, what would I be thinking?” [entanglement of consciousness], “All things behave by the same principle”, “The entire universe is the flow of one principle”.
From these, all knowledge emerges.
Entanglement, Awareness, Remote Recognition, Consciousness, Prediction, are all the same thing - Affectance - affect upon affect, the one principle and cause for all things - “Affectance cannot be what it is and also remain as it is.” What you refuse to allow to become a part of you, what you keep separate from you, becomes your adversary.
Absolute zero affect is impossible.
From that one principle, the universe and all within it emerges.
We had discussed point A affecting point B which afterward affected point C, right?
But what that implies is that point A had “absolute zero” affect upon C until after it affected B. Absolute zero is impossible.
Thus point A must be already affecting point C, fore it is impossible not to.
And if it is affecting point C, then what is to stop it from affecting any and all points… and all the time?
It is the degree of affect that determines distance, not whether there is any affect.
My sneeze has extremely little affect upon you.
But everything I do has SOME affect upon you.
It is up to you to sense more of it and learn entanglement in order to know more of what I am thinking… at times even before I think it.
But what about the max rate of propagation of PtA? In my thinking, PtA would transfer from A to C with a maximum velocity of c. Or what else is propagation at all, if all points are already affecting each other instantly?
I thought affectance can be stagnated into particles, absorbed within self-sustaining systems. Only indirectly they would affect points outside of that system through the total PtA of the system.
Point A is affecting point B more greatly than point C.
C isn’t said to be “affected by A” until the affect upon C is equal to what it was upon B.
The degree of affect is what travels at c. But there is always some degree of affect upon all points.
How much money anyone has affects how much money everyone else has, instantly.
It is only the delay, in a bank for instance, of the trade of money that causes the affect of money to accumulate into the hands of the banker. An economy is the propagation of money, determined by trade speed and accumulation, “delays”. The affect of having money cannot travel at an infinite speed, but the fact that it is owned instantly affects how much anyone else owns as well as what they can do with it.
If you already had $100,000,000, I might not know of it until I attempted to trade my $1.00 for something you had. But whether I had that potential to make that trade was already determined before any trade was attempted. The potential of my money was instantly reduced as soon as you acquired the $100 million, regardless of how far away you were. The change in potential is instantaneous. But any actual degree of affecting requires time.
Your knowledge of the amount that you had instantly affects how much actual affect my money could have. I am thus instantly affected by the money that you have already acquired. But if there is someone between us with whom we each must trade, the transaction speed affects how much devaluation your money had on me directly. If mine was already in trade, already affecting, even though you had acquired your money, the affect that your acquisition had on mine is reduced even lower than if I had not yet begun the trade. (Local vs Universal potential)
Money is quantized influence or affect, “PtA”. How much total potential any amount has can be instantly altered throughout the world. But the trading of the money, changing hands, affecting, takes time and cannot be instantly altered, thus it is the degree of affect from your acquisition that must travel to me in order to have full effect. But the overall potential of my money was set the very instant you acquired your money. Your acquisition instantly affected my potential to affect you with my money. But it couldn’t stop the affect that I was already in process of having upon the one between us.
Thus you have the instantaneous affect that requires time to travel before it has full affect = propagation of affect.
The “Shaolin priest” already deduced that you were acquiring the money and thus was affected even before you were. He was affected more, sooner, yet still had the option to take advantage of the time delay.
I could not be me if I didn’t.
But everyone, even animals are always using a degree of that same process.
The fun is to get good at it.
… thus is the make of a “Lord” or “Prophet” (whether a master or not).
Sherlock Holmes was using that process concerning history in order to deduce who must have been the bad guy. The Shaolin priest uses that same process concerning the future such as to know of the bad guy even before the bad guy knows. In a sense, they represent the masculine and feminine of the mind. The masculine is focused on future effect. The feminine is more focused on past and present affects. “Live in the present” is a feminine attribute (“feel”). “Consider the future” is a masculine attribute (“Logic, Strategize”).
I might not know much about where Science, Secularism, and the World is, but I know where it is going.
Learn RM:AO and you will too.
Very clear. I agree and this light on the money theme has its reverberations within value ontology. My reaction will take some time to be formed. Maybe you can anticipate it.
