Yeah OK but that’s not what you originally said that I responded to. You said
what is the difference between affectance and energy?
Don’t they both mean - the ability to change something?
Also, the paper I’ve been quoting sets out a way to tell things about a quantum island system by knowing that it’s entangled to another one and knowing a gravity field that affects both. Which is yet another elegant solution provided by the impostor information paradigm. You look without looking.
“Listen, we don’t know what the fuck we’re looking at, we’ll just call it information and leave it at that, OK?”
That’s something of a different approach than what I understand your idea takes.
So a football can’t hit you in the face until you affect it? 
I know that light affects whatever it runs across - even other light - it doesn’t have anything to do with quantum physics or whether you saw it. And yes anything affecting is also being affected - “energy exchange”.
It seems that your objection is one of the use of the word “affect”.
So you have accepted the quantum ontology? Time travel - observer requirements and all of that? - Schrodinger’s cat is both alive and dead until you observe it?
Yes Affectance Ontology works with what we Can know - not the presumption that we Can’t know (how would you know that you can’t know?)
“Whatever is there, it’ll behave concurrently with information.”
Ah, I think we’ve arrived at where the misunderstanding is.
Yes it does. I will explain why below.
What Shrodinger’s cat and all of this illustrates is not a limitation of quantum fields, but a limitation of our instruments. For this, you have to understand that you cannot, in fact, see something without intereacting with it, and you can’t interact with it without changing it, and any change in a quantum field is drastic change. The problem in quantum mechanics is that when you measure something, the way you measure it changes the way it behaves. So, if you don’t observe it directly, by using an instrument that affects it, the traces it leaves indicate one thing. But if you do observe it directly, it is so sensitive to your instrument that it behaves differently. Imagine that the only way to detect a football is it bashing into your face. Then you won’t know where it would have landed if you didn’t put your face in the way but you can’t see it if you don’t put your face there.
There is a lot of nonsense mythology around quantum physics, that’s what kept me away from it for so long. People are idiots.
We know we can’t know because we know whatever we can use to measure it in order to know would alter it so significantly that it won’t actually tell us what we want to know. We know because we know the limitaitons of our instruments.
I definitely see the problem.
So when QM proposes that the photon or particle in the double-slit experiment splits and goes through both slits at the same time then recombines on the other side to land at one place on the screen - you buy that?
Tell me if you agree with this - it is about the QM ontology that you appear to have accepted -
_
Interesting thread… it gave me much (homework) to look up and read, this morning, to aid me to formulate my own thoughts and images (because I formulate images, along with my thoughts).
I don’t think you understood the experiment.
Light, and other very small things, were once thought to behave much like larger particles do. But, because of how small these things are, when they move through space, they actually behave like waves. And, in fact, photons are another much mythologized thing. They are not ‘things’ like molecules are, or even electrons, which are already not properly ‘things.’ Light has to do with a chain reaction between electrons of different atoms that are very fast, it is not movement of electrons such as in electricity but the actual changing of a property of the electron by the other, it is the fastest thing that can happen between two electrons in two atoms, thus two atoms, thus any matter.
It is not a particle, but it is not exactly a wave either because it moves so goddamn fast. It’s not like when a molecule touches other molecules and then those touch others in a traditional wave, such as makes sound. This happens at too small a scale and too quick a speed to be a wave properly speaking, but it does have several attributes of a wave like you might imagine, as the basic principle is not so different from that of waves. Einstein said light did constitute particles called photons only in the sense that this changing of each electron by the previous and of the next one the last and next atom over has an energy expression, as you might expect, and this energy, having a place in space time, and all energy being matter anyway, it can be called a particle. But it annoyingly isn’t really quite. It is an interaction between electrons.
So, when you throw light through a slit, even though it technically sort of is a particle, it behaves like a wave, because it actually sort of is a wave. And if it passes through two slits, the same thing, but some asshole said only an instrument on one of the slits would detect a photon, but this is a silly illustrative thought experiment because if you did place an instrument at the slit to observe the photon, it would absorb it, and no more photon would be, and that is why the thought experiment cannot actually be conducted. the simple slit experiment of course has and of course found that light has both particle and wave properties, because it is strictly neither.
It is, in any case, useful to describe some issues in quantum mechanics because #1 it explains how things that are neither waves nor particles behave, such as all things are at the quantum field level, as either depending on the state of the system and what affects it and #2 that, when doing quantum physics, you really can’t observe without altering, because everything is so small.
_
What! no gravitons… makes you wonder why, doesn’t it. I have my own thought on that matter.
It’s always the most useful theory out there that wins the day in being utilised… that never seems to change… a constant, lol.
Why you would think that things at such small a scale would behave the same way as things on a larger scale is beyond me. That is probably one challenge in assigning falsifiable entity to these phenomena, they are not really anything we know. It doesn’t mean they are not anything, and not being able to directly observe without dramatically altering them doesn’t help in formulating a clear image of what it then is (if not really a wave or a particle). This itself also doesn’t mean that large scale phenomena shouldn’t affect it, like gravity. But, so far, math been really hard to do that described how it would, because the math of these big things is used to describe how waves and particles move, and these are not the things that exist at the smaller scales. But, if you treat it all as information, you of course find that they are in fact part of the same world, do affect each other, and you can mathematically describe how. All you have to do is stop worrying about whether it is a particle or some unidentified quantum-field scale thing, maybe a kind of 15-d string or whatever, and just ask yourself how the values change when the information in each system interacts.
Turns out this fucking works, and physics is now exploding.
I can see many incoherencies in your report - too many.
I suddenly feel that I am defending Mr Trump against a BLM advocate who only knows the MSM global socialist propaganda headlines. 
“O’Biden’s economic policies are really working!”
When I was speaking about this topic with the doctor, his sister was there, and she asked if I thought I would understand one of his books, with all the equations and stuff. I said of course not. It is like he has been watching a 27 season show, and I watch one episode and try to understand the same things. I can be given recaps, as he remarked, but that will never be the same as having watched the whole thing. I have simply devoted too much of my time to other pursuits that he has obsessively devoted to pursuing this topic.
I then said that I at least take comfort in Einstein’s idea that if you can’t explain it to a 5-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself.
He said that may be true, but there is another famous saying in physics:
You can’t explain quantum physics to a dog.
You can think about it like this:
All these theories on the quantum level, straight quantum mechanics as well as all the different iterations of string and M theory, record information about dynamics, at that scale. No matter how wild the imagination behind a 15 dimensional string theory, its mathematics do effectively address the readings and observed behavior that quantum mechanics detects at that level. So the information reflects real things. the same can be said about macro dynamics, really, such as gravity. No matter what theory you postulate behind what gravity is and why it occurs the way it does, the mathematics applied to real observed phenomena as a result of those imaginary creations accurately describes those phenomena. In physics, accurately describes means that you can predict what will happen, as well, of course, as what has happened, in a system given certain conditions. So, in both cases, accurate information, faithful to the actual behavior of physical phenomena, has been stored via mathematics. Whatever the case, the information is true to the physical world. Whatever the conjectures behind them. So, really, all you have to do is assume that all these phenomena do occur in the same world, and so affect each other. then, all you have to do is use the math from both scales, and from the different theories on each scale, as pertaining to information (which, given the assumption that they address the same physical world, should be equivalent information), and baddabing baddaboom, you can solve problems on each scale that previously were invalidated by not applying to the other scale.
Or you can call the police.
I blame scientists for using flowery imagery that they think is poetic.
They honestly don’t think, or maybe they are just amused by the fact that they will be confusing the shit out of people.
We would all be better served if they just sounded like the nerds that they are.
Take Shrodinger’s cat.
The mathematics of quantum mechanics, at least at the time, described a state as both X or Y until it is observed, when it collapses into X or Y. This was a description borne out of necessity, not just to say that you can;t know if it is X or Y until you look, but that you have to assume it is both X and Y for the mathematics to work. Not ‘either X or Y because you don’t know yet,’ but 'both X and Y. ’
Shrodinger gave the image of a box with a cat and a poison capsule that would be broken only if the quantum state was X. And that, until you look to see if the quantum state is X or Y, the cat is both alive or dead. It is an obvious impossibility used to describe limitations in the math. Not even limitations in the theory or the imagery, but the actual math that worked to compute these things. It was used for that reason, because ti worked. The scientists used their imagination to concieve of the situation they were observing, and designed a mathematical system to describe it, that did describe what it did. So the math was good, but the imagery flawed, and the mathematics, though good, was limited. It was never a comment on the imagery or philosophical implications, the philosophical implications were used as an illustratiion of the limitations of the math. It was not a reflection on reality, but a call to improve the math, an illustration of all the work that was ahead if physics was to advance.
It is rather an argument against the popularization of science. If this thought experiment had been left in the hands of only elite physicists and advanced afficionados, ther would be no problem.
But put it in the hands of people with neither the understanding nor the interest in actual physics, and you get “What The Bleep Do We Know.”
Or dudes like Fixed Cross with his ‘psychic connections’ or whatever.
These are maths that apply to a certain subatomic scale, not fucking, descriptions of psychological phenomena.
“Oh, if quantum fields can be entangled, so too can minds be entangled!”
Fuck out of here.