First of all let me clear that JSSRM means - JAMES S. SAINT’S RATIONAL METAPHYSICS.
While reading some of his posts and whatever more or less conversation I had with him, I found that sometimes, James came up with extraordinary and perfect explanations. This prompted me to get through his blog and found that interesting too. We all know that his concept of RATIONAL METAPHYSICS, that he discussed with Eugene in thread ‘quantum theory of the world’. During our conversation, we mutually agreed upon to create a new thread exclusively on RM, in which RM is described and used to explain different phenomena (without too much stress on mathematical analysis) as it would be more purposeful to discuss it in one go, instead of bit and pieces. I have borrowed the name of JSSRM from Eugene.
I thought that it would be interesting to know how RM deals with my hands on approach towards philosophy.
So James, here is my first inquiry-
What is RM and what are its basic concepts/premises?
As we discussed in the other thread, to me, RM looks more alike the extension of the ideology of Spinoza- All is nature and nature is all thus, natural laws are applicable everywhere. Or it is something different, and if so, then why?
Personally, I do not have any objection even if you kept Spinoza at the base of it. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong in it because this is how philosophy and science use to grow and mature but I expect from you an explanation in this regard.
But still, I do want to insist on Spinoza. You can avoid that if you want and restrict your reply only to the basic concept of RM. I do not mind it either way.
Anyone else, who is interested in this topic, is welcome to share his opinions.
A) Thanks for your interest.
B) “JSSRM” actually meant my personal speculations beyond the proven RM, such as specific cosmological concerns.
C) I scanned through Spinoza’s philosophy briefly when someone had accused me of being a “Spinozian”. Much like so many others, RM has similarities, but is not the same thing as any of them for a variety of reasons, perhaps the most significant is that Rational Metaphysics is beyond the stage of merely presumed axioms and speculations. RM stands on its own Definitional Logic and borrows from no one.
As to what RM is, briefly;
Although physics is a natural starting topic within RM, RM actually addresses all fields of thought in all sciences, religions, philosophies, governances, and economics. The same rules upon which RM is founded, apply to all endeavors.
Initial “starting point” thoughts and issues include;
From which ever point you might want to start, RM leads into the cause of inertia. It seems that not understanding that cause is what held back early classical physicists and led to the more imaginative quantum physicists made popular today.
I should add that this explanation must be limited in certain regards due to a variety of issues. But there is plenty of room for getting the basic idea and seeing how strongly it relates to your universe and life.
James, I am not a man in hurry thus, before going further, I want to make sure that I have properly understood so far.
Here is a quote from the link that you mentioned regarding definitional logic-
[i]Definitional Logic–
Logic ≡ the recognition of association between definitions and/or axioms such as to reveal an associated truth.
Definitional Logic ≡ the recognition of association between definitions such as to reveal an associated definitional truth.
Definitional Truth ≡ a statement wherein a portion or portions of reality have been identified by definition as that portion of reality.
Definitional logic is based strictly upon defined concepts and entities, void of presumed axiomatical truths. In the process of thinking and communicating, it is critical to maintain consistency in word-concept association.
Logic is a process wherein cross associations are discovered that must be true due simply because of the defined concept consistency involved. When the defined concepts are then firmly associated with physical reality, relevant “truth” is revealed.
An error in the use of logic or in a belief in a truth is discovered when there is a conflict, a disharmony, in the assigned concepts; when something has been inadvertently associated with its contradiction.
Above all else, Logic is defined by its lack of contradiction.
When the only axioms involved in an argument are definitions, all proper conclusions are true “by definition”. Usually such is a simple and obvious association, but sometimes the arguments, even though merely based on definitions, can become complex and surprisingly revealing.
A simple example would be the proposal that an infinite line has no end to it. If the word “infinite” has been defined to mean “no end associated”, then it can be stated with certainty that “by definition”, an infinite line has no end… end of discussion. Whether that conclusion is significant or relevant to anyone is another matter.
Realize that an axiom is a statement of proposed truth. A definition is not. A definition is merely clarifying the concurrent language for the moment. Definitions are not true or untrue. They are declaration to be accepted for the duration. If they conflict with standard or common definitions, the arguments might be pointless, but not incorrect or invalid, merely a wast of time.
“1+1 = 2” is true by definition (not by experiment or presumed axioms).
Definitional proofs are always merely about how the words have been defined to represent their associated concepts.
In contrast a more common type of argument might be that “cars are manmade”. Typically, one would presume that any car would be made by man. But a car is not defined as an entity made by man, it is defined by its form and function. Thus the conclusion, whether true or not, is not the product of definitional logic, but rather axiomatical logic, requiring that all parties agree on the axioms involved.
In any one definitional logic argument, there can be no disagreement as to the definitions involved (assuming that they have been stated) although there can easily be dispute as to whether the definitions are meaningful or useful in common language.
The significant difference is merely that a declared definition for the duration of the author’s argument can’t be disputed. If a thousand year old argument begins with, "since we define a circle as…, then… ", the argument cannot be defeated by the claim that “but that isn’t what the word ‘circle’ means” or “but we have discovered that circles aren’t really round in the physical universe.” The conclusion made by the author might depend on his assumptions that his defined circles apply to a physical world in a manner that turned out to be incorrect, but that is another matter relating to extended axiomatic truth assumptions after the definitional argument.
Using Definitional Logic is a means of absolutely knowing that ones conclusions are beyond doubt. The conclusions are not subject to misperceptions, relative measures, or presumptions.
Stemming from a more complex example of definitional logic is the revelation of exactly what causes all of the laws of physics to be what they are; why mass attracts, why particles form, why some particles are positive, neutral, or negative, why opposites attract, and why they don’t merely collapse into each other.
The results of the logic, once verified for properness, are incontrovertible as they are true “by definition”. Of course ensuring that such conclusions exactly relate to the physical world, not merely a conceptual architecture is critical before issuing any conclusion concerning truth.[/i]
Whatever I understood from this is that–
You are proposing that the statements/logic should be seen according to the context. Each and every one has his own definition and that does not attract fallibility. Their purpose is restricted only to narrate the intention of the author/context/situation. Thus, there may be difference in definitional truth and real truth.
And if we replace mere definitions by axioms then the outcome of logic must be real/universal truth.
So, you visulize this universe is made of affectance. Do you see any difference between affectance and desire/ will/ property/ probability to cause or change?
As i understood this,it implies that there is no void or vaccum in the universe. Each and every point of space is filled by potential points of changeability which can be affected by surrounded ones. There is continuous chopping and changing is going on and thus, the density of affectance use to differ at different points.
James, first let me know whether i got you right or not. Correct me where you find any difference in apprehention. Only then we proceed further.
It would help the readers (such as myself) if you would use the standard quote indicators of [qoute].and.[/qoute] when you are quoting text, but don’t misspell “quote” when you do it. If you merely press the “quote” button in your reply editor, it will provide those markers for you or you can just type them in.
Exactly. And more importantly, the author must be careful to see that definitions are provided. Imagine how different the world would be if the Bible for example, had come with a comprehensive lexicon appended.
Yes, an axiom might be a definition or it might be a presumed truth statement. If it is a presumed truth statement, then the conclusion will be either actually true or false. If the axioms are merely defined concepts, and there are no errors in the argumentation part of the logic, the conclusion will always be correct, but might or might not apply to physical, observed reality.
1) Build a comprehensive conceptual, hypothetical model of reality, an “ontology”. 2) Compare every possible detail of the model to observed reality. That is the duty and purpose of Science.
RM began as merely a hypothetical model of concepts that were logically connected. It wasn’t until that model was seen to actually match every known observed detail in physics that RM became fact rather than merely theory.
That would depend upon the subject of study.
"desire/ will/ " - those words imply consciousness and intent. Affectance is not restricted to merely intentional or conscious affects.
“property/” - I’m not certain in which way you meant to use that word.
“probability to cause” - again that word implies a consciousness that is ignorant of a causal directive and thus must guess at a probability.
To affect means to cause change. “Affectance” refers to the total field of all minuscule, subtle causes of any type. In physics, it refers to the most fundamental cause that can exist and that is merely the “potential to cause change” itself, “PtA”. A potential is merely a situation of imbalance. As long as there is distinction, there is a potential for change. As long as there is distinction in the physical universe, that potential is actualizing to at least some small degree, “the motion of the ocean - the physical universe is made of the changing”.
In RM, existence is defined as the set of all that have affect. If something is proposed to not have any affect whatsoever, it does not exist. If anything has any affect whatsoever, it does exist.
Yes, but it is not “potential points of changeability” but rather “points of potential changeability”. There is a difference in English. There are not “potential points”, but rather “point of potential”.
The concept of absolute nothingness is actually invalid in the same way as that of a square-circle. The notion of a infinite volume with no distinction within is a valid concept, “infinite homogeneity”. But as it turns out that concept refers to an impossible state. The situation of the universe being totally homogeneous could never actually exist. The reason for that involves the concerns of infinite comparisons. No volume of points can be infinitely identical, “infinite homogeneity is impossible”.
What is imagined as this;
in reality must logically (due to the definition of “infinity”) be this;
And upon closer examination must be this;
And no matter how small you get, those variations must be a part of the logical construct of what we imagine as “nothingness”. Currently theoretical physicists are being encouraged to accept the same notion, but Quantum Mechanics demands that there is a limit to the smallest size (Plank’s Constant) due to the quantum theory that all things are quantized. Obviously RM disagrees with that theory.
Yes, excellent idea. Communication of intended meaning is paramount and that requires verification and feedback. So I too am interested in seeing that we understand each other before any disagreement can be assessed or any real progress can be made.
Those marked in blue are fundamental RM principles that can be logically derived merely from definitions of the concepts.
Making things up with poetry and beautful rethorics doesn’t make anything but a philosically carrot. People like to chase rainbows if the reason is good enough.
Please quote something solid where this James actually describes a real life thing, instead of just painting every general concept bright.
And the mind of the many speaks up, the head of the horde rises from the Sea.
“Don’t listen to this guy.
He is just a crackpot.
He is unacceptable.
He is one of the Unchosen.
He is a dreamer.
He is a liar.
He is paranoid.
He is the Devil.
He is not one of Us.
He is ignorant.
He is a fool.
He knows nothing of Us good and righteous.
He knows nothing of our good Science and revelations.
Look not upon the Evil.
Hear not the voice of the condemned.
Return to the fold.
Be one of the Us.
Resistance is futile.
Rejoin the collective.”
Seriously?
Absolutely no content. No particular objections, merely discontent.
Have you no brain at all? No ability to think for yourself whatsoever?
It’s amazing that so very many of you still exist.
Or is it?
What great social paradigm has ever existed without mindless groupies and fanatical supporters.
And they wonder what really brought their demise.
They need merely look into the mirror.
James, I am bit confused between ‘quote’ and ‘qoute’ since long. As far as I came to know that ‘qoute’ it not a formal word but slang. It is used only on the net or may be used in American English but not in the British. After you pointed out, I once again tried to find the real meaning of the ‘qoute’ via wiki, google, free online dictionary etc but there is no such word exists.
So, to avoid any further confusion, whenever I quote anything from outside the thread, I use italic only and the same is for popular parables, legends and folklores.
Let me tell you honestly that my English is not as good as perhaps it looks. I do not type directly in the answer box but use to type my answers in Microsoft word to avoid any spelling mistakes and then paste it in the box.
Yes, i got it and also think that underlined portion is very important.
OK james, loud and clear. You are avoiding another words because those are not ‘Neutral’.
OK.
I understood what you are saying.
Although i am not sure, but my memory is telling me that there was some physical experiment that confirmed that bodies use to emit potons in quanta.
So james, so far so good. I can feel that we can move on.
before moving on further, let me clear that at this moment, i am not arguing with you. I am accepting your concept unreservedly. I may have some disagreements but we shall talk about it later when you will be done.
There are only two established ways to understand the reality; bottom to top and top to bottom. Having said that,In my opinion, the best way is to start from the very point where we stand and what we have as humans and that is in the middle of the journey; Cartesian approach of the solitary rational thinker.
But james, i feel that to understand your perspective, it would be better to start from the top.
So, how do you visualize or explain the the initial point of existence.
I apologize. I was merely trying to explain how to use the quote markers. I had said that if you put the word “quote” between square brackets, “”, the editor will begin a quote block for you. But if I actually had typed it properly, MY browser would think that I was trying to start an actual quote and thus when I posted it, you wouldn’t see what I had typed. So I intentionally misspelled “quote” as “qoute” so that my own browser wouldn’t immediately respond and then said, “but do not misspell ‘quote’” hoping that you would see what to do. At the end of the text that you want to quote. you must add a slash, /, to the beginning of the word “quote” so as to tell the browser that you are ending the quoted text.
Huh? I have no idea what you mean by “neutral”.
And I avoided those words only for the reasons that I gave.
Does that mean that you understand and agree? Or that you merely accept for the moment and wish to go on?
They were referring to atoms (not particles) emitting quanta of energy known as photons. That is what actually began their notion of things being quantized, but as usual, they take it to an extreme and declare that ALL things throughout the entire universe must be quantized. RM agrees that atoms will release quanta of energy. But RM actually understands exactly why and what the limits involved in the concept are.
I had assumed that you are not arguing, nor am I.
But it isn’t going to work for you to merely accept axioms, let me go on and on building a mountain of thought, and then you saying, “yeah well, I didn’t really accept STEP 1”.
I need to know what you actually agree with or not BEFORE we move on, not much later. It is pointless to build an entire logical argument based on a premise that was never actually accepted as true.
From that, I sense that you didn’t understand anything that I had posted, because I have already answered that.
So what didn’t you understand?
The universe could never have begun. The universe has always existed.
If a Big Bang occurred, it was merely something like very large black-holes colliding. That would also explain the flatness and spiraling issues. The Eternal Universe - An Ocean of Motion. But that blog is my own speculation, “JSSRM”, not proven “RM”.
Btw, you should expect harpies and drones like Drusus, stakiktech, Physbang, and others to pop in making ad hom remarks from time to time. They are just trying to make sure that no one strays from the fold and that they think what they are supposed to think according to their masters and the collective. Best to just start ignoring them. They never actually use reasoning for anything that is on topic.
As you wish. Let me summarize what we discussed so far-
DEFINITIONAL LOGIC – your opinion is understood and accepted.
AFFECTANCE- your opinion is understood but accepted according to your definition only. There may be other versions of the explanations. I shall describe those when we will discuss highest ontological position.
EXISTENCE –
ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS EXISTS- your opinion is understood and accepted.
ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT AFFECT DOES NOT EXISTS- your opinion is understood but not accepted.
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS MADE OF CHANGING- your opinion is understood and accepted.
INFINITE HOMOGENEITY IS IMMPOSIBLE- your opinion is understood and accepted.
TOTAL NOTHINGNESS IS IMMPOSSIBLE- your opinion is understood and accepted
No. Actually, i understand each and every word that you have been said so far and even sometimes anticipated your response, just because i have been read your posts and your blog as well.
James, let us remember we are still on the public domain. Our discussion may be watched by others as well as silent viewres. The purpose of our discussion is to present and examine RM. Thus I am trying to do that in such a way that any reader, who has no idea of RM, could be able to apprhend the concept easily and comment and participate in the discussion, and this would be possible only when we shall go by step and step.
If we were discussing through PM or email, then the tone would be different.
So james, we have only one disagreement so far- Any thing that does not affect, does not exist.
I shall argue that there cannot be any such thing in universe which can hold its existence being detached from the univese. And if that is so, it imlies that the total existance is a singularity.The existence is a chain type phenomenen. If the first ring of the moves, it would cause change even to the last ring, more or less, sooner or later.
As far as i understood, even RM is pedicting so.
I am quoting the second premise of THE OCEAN OF MOTIONS-
2) Every point in space affects every other point adjacent to it (by definition of “adjacency”).
So james, it clear the each point is going to affect its adjacent one, and as the result, the second one will do the same to third one and this process will go on upto the last point. Thus, there cannot be any point remained unaffected hypnotically.
The same should be in the case of realms of exixtence.
james, i do not think that you should name anyone and i would like to differ here.
If anyone post here, even for condemn, i would like to thank to him. Just because, he is taking pain for express his ideas. So what even if he is on the other side of the road? He is doing what is in vertue in his opinion and we are doing what we think is in virtue. So, it is still only the difference of opinion, nothing else.
Every thing should be seen in the context, impartially and more importantly, as a third person. This is the real meaning of philosophy.
James, this is the practical implication of DEFINITIONAL LOGIC.
You cannot be certain of that without confirming it with me… and even then errors can occur.
That is exactly what I would prefer.
Your postings are in consideration of “tone”. That is good for you.
Mine seldom are. Tone is irrelevant to the logical content, the “reasoning”.
I am not interested in those who would like what I say only because they like ME or the MANNER in which I might say something.
I do not see that you have argued your case.
You have merely pointed out that every “existing” point affects every other, which is My case.
Your case was that something could exist and yet NOT affect any other.
Can you give an example of anything that exists and yet has absolutely no affect upon anything else?
But beyond whatever your argument might be, realize that the existence issue is not one of truth or fiction, but of declared definition.
We might disagree on that (the underlined), but it is a different topic.
Yes James, you are right. I think that i overstated by saying ‘each and every word’.
Actually, i should had been said that- By and large, i can understand what you are saying.
James, my argument is very simple.
Just like you, i also visualize that this universe is derived from a singularity. Thus, anything that exists so far is the very part of that. Thus, there must be some sort of INTERCONNECTNESS between all the existences. That is why i said that the existence, in its totality, is like a chain. Thus, when any ring of the chain is affected, the impact tends to permeate the whole of the chain, more or less.
I am repeating my statement from my previous post- I shall argue that there cannot be any such thing in universe which can hold its existence being detached from the universe.
And this should be read as-
THERE IS NO POSSSIBILITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF ANY FOREIGN AND ALIEN ENTITY/EXISTENCE IN THIS UNIVERSE.
Yes James, i am realizing that.
Going by the declared definition, you are right. I am not trying to refute you on that. I am not overruling either RM or definitional logic. I am accepting that anything that does not affect, does not exist. No disagreement on this. I am indicating that there is no possibility of happening this in this universe thus this statement is meaningless.
Now you can ask me that why i did not accept this in the first place and registered my objection?
James, i see that there is only one and very remote possibility of existing any such thing, that does not affect.
If we assume that initially there was more than one entity, then it is possible that each and every one of them created their own universes. In that case, there cannot be any INTERCONNECTNESS between the different universes. Thus, the existence of the other universes is not going to affect this universe. Thus, technically there is a possibility but very remote one.
James, my intention was that there is no need of saying that anything does not affect, does not exist. The statement that anything that affects has existence, is more than enough. If we insist on this (non existence), then that will stand up against the 2nd premise of ‘the ocean of motions’ that- Every point in space affects every other point adjacent to it and it imlies that there cannot be any possibility of non-existence.
James, it is more of clearification/explanation/suggestion from my part, instead of criticism.
Now, i think that you can resume with your detail of that ontological point from where the existence emerged.
The issue in RM is to build a useful ontology from a declared epistemology. During the building of it, one must put off any thought that an epistemological definition is not “true”. There can be no “truth” yet. The only question is whether there have been any logical contradictions and whether the end product is useful (hence the term “Rational” - suiting a purpose). But we must get toward the end before we can assess usefulness, “rationality”.
In RM, there are “realms of existence”. For example, there is the realm of concepts, also known in history as the “realm of the divine”, wherein all idealized concepts “exist”. Those entities cannot ever exist in the “physical realm” because the physical realm (in RM) is made entirely of all time related changing, “temporal causation”.
In the conceptual realm, each concept affects by structure, the other concepts (a straight line affects what a square is). Thus they form a realm of mutual affecting, but only by structure, not time related. Within that realm are things like; perfect circles, squares, infinite lines, and millions of other concepts, “the host of angels” including the very concept of “God”. None of those concepts can ever change. They can be named differently of course, but they never change what they are. They are “outside of time”.
The physical realm is a different kind of affecting wherein the entities affect and change each other through time. This is the realm of “Physics”. And this is the classical distinction being discussed from Plato through the history of philosophical thought up until Scientism. In Scientism nothing exists period unless it can be physically measured by Man. There is no other realm of any kind. In Scientism the ONLY existence is what Man can physically measure and demonstrate to others. That notion is what led to the Quantum Science labyrinth of current confusions, irrational speculations, and proclamation that “God does not exist” and “all things change”.
RM doesn’t try to claim that anyone is right about any of their ontological issues. RM is an independently defined and constructed ontology that you can later see, applies to all of Science’s concerns of physics as well as every other field of study.
For the third time; Existence did not ever “emerge”.
It has always existed because it is logically impossible for it to NOT exist. There has always been changing, “physical existence”. Time is the measure of relative change. Time must either always exist or never exist. It cannot be “started”. Changing cannot “begin”.
So what are you asking for with that post? Further explanation concerning why it is an impossible event? Why the very concept of total nothingness is an irrational thought? What?
Sorry for any confusion on my part, but I feel like you are agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.
If that part is clear, I think the next thing to get clear is the ontological concerns of “potential-to-affect”, “PtA”, and “Affectance”.
No James, you need not to be sorry for that.I think that we must deal with this in the first place.
James, actually i wanted to completely understand RM and derived conclusions from it, prior to argue on them. That is why i initially i accepted what you said in totality. But you insisted that i should have register if i have any disagreement going along. To do so, i have to argue on our differences and put forward my version too. That is what i am doing.
Thus, i am trying to do two things at once. Firstly, I am understanding your version by your or RM’s definition. I cannot challenge that, because if i do so, then the concept of DEFINITIONAL LOGIC will be cheated. Now, if you ask my opinion, then i have to show my concerns and argue for them so let us not confuse on that.
Now, for example, you mentioned about realms of existence in your last post. One option for me is that i shall understand and accept those verbatim, that i will do eventually but, after understanding that, i have to mention my disagreements and their reasoning as well.
Understood. But i want one clearification.
You mentioned logical contradictions. I want to know whether you mean by that only definitional contradictions or this term is open for all?
james, this is a bit confusing to me. I am just unable to grasp what you are proposing. Would you explain it in detail.
James, though i mentioned the word ‘emerge’ again but i think that you understand what i mean by that. I am also of the opinion that the existance was eternal and will be so. But, i do not have any proper noun for that stage and ‘emergance’ serves the purpose.
james, excellent explanation. I understood what you said and also agree with the underlying intention, and by and large with the whole explanation. Having said that, i have some disagreements also. If you wish, then i shall mention them.
Almost clear but not completely. But i think that you can continue.
James, i want to say something personal and hope that you do not mind that.
Whatever i understood you so far via this thread, your blog and different posts, that gives me a feeling that your cogitations are not based only on reasoning. My understanding is telling me again and again that there must be some other source of your knowledge/underatanding also. Reasoning alone cannot trvel so far without any outside help because it has its limitations. I can say this because of my personal experience. I am feeling that you are trying to match that knowledge, which you acquired other than books,through reasoning.
Please, do not misunderstand me as i am not talking about philosophers/ books. I am not saying that you are quoting someone else.
Your explanation of ‘realms of existence’ is a perfect example of that. This is the second time i felt that unusualness very clearly. I felt it for the first time when you post on the thread- Existence of God can be proved or not’ about the working of the mind.I can say without any hesitation that no book of thelogy/ontology is able to provide that insight. And, the same is applicable for thinking/reasoning also. This is an entirely different zone and traditional philosophy has no means to approach that.
I want to know about that other and source and process if you like, otherwise you can continue.
Logic is actually a comparison to the premises offered. Logic does not mean “I understand things differently”.
A confusion concerning what logic actually is has been recently promoted. I am only concerned with “self-contradiction”, not alternative narratives. In the long run, if RM, even coherent, doesn’t actually answer the relevant questions at hand, then it is reasonable to object to any or all details involved in RM.
Okay, NOW I understand… I will try to compensate for the language difference.
Haha… that is what I mean by “agreeing yet not agreeing”. {{this is going to be fun}}
Seek any self-contradiction and question it.
Given that option I will only give this one quote and then continue (expecting relevant questions);
“My home is Reality. My Father, Logic. And Mother, Compassion. I am Rationality. By the staff of my Father, I answer to the needs of my Mother.”
Is there any part of the following that you have question about?
1.) Existence is defined by the property of affect.
2.) Affect can only derive from potential to affect (to change) a separate or distinguished affect.
3.) The probability of infinite similarity vs the slightest dissimilarity is 0.000… or “0+”.
4.) Due to the above, in almost all adjacent locations, the potential for affect cannot be infinitely identical.
5.) Because the potential to affect is not identical almost anywhere, actualization of affect takes place.
6.) As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate spuriously in both direction and magnitude.
7.) When propagating waves of affect overlap, they add.
8.) The rate of adding affects cannot be instantaneous, else there would be infinite homogeneity of affect.
9.) Due to that maximum rate of adding affects, any additional propagating affect that comes along must wait for a bit.
10.) By the waiting causing more waiting, a slowness in propagation in the general area forms.
11.) Any maximum accumulation that is not continually supported disseminates.
12.) When affects add to more than a maximum, part of those affects continues to attempt adding while the extra portion delays - “Inertia”.
And Mother, Compassion- This is a bolt from the blue to me.
I am Rationality- I can see that.
By the staff of my Father- This is necessary.
I answer to the needs of my Mother- This is again surprising but pleasant one.
James,
You have offered a lot in the last two posts. I am trying to go through it but i need a a little bit of time to swallow and let my digestion system to absorb it.
