Incompleteness

A system which is able to make sense must be an incomplete system, just like a nonentropic system must be an open system.

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W
by Jakob » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:20 am
obsrvr524 wrote:But their “ontology” is based on measuring a lot of things then assuming an average as the “quantum”. They ignore the details and build their entire ontology based on group categories - “everything we measure has an average quantity of energy - so everything is made of quanta of energy”.

They have to know that they have just made a convenience for calculating the typical size of small things. That is not a complete picture of reality - it is a crude estimate for ease of calculation (similar to dividing all people into political groups - regardless of their individuality - it serves the planners and manipulators).

That is what I had inferred from what is taught by wikipedia and such. But after I read Bohr I understood that the step-wise buildup is inferred from spectral data. Quanta on the subatomic scale interact with each other in a way that does not produce gradations of energy in the way that a smooth increase would prescribe, as it does on Newtonean scales; the bottom line is that smooth scales are a matter of averages. Accuracy shows reality to be anything but smooth; it is rather jagged.

I do believe you interpret too much humanities into the sciences.
Jakob wrote:
I did not say AO holds that the world is homogenous. I indicate that affectance, as a criterion, is homogenous.

That is not in AO. AO states the opposite - that homogeneity is impossible in the real world.

I just said that that is not what I meant. The criterion is homogenous with itself on a level (math) that VO’s criterion is not. The calculatability of real order in terms of quantity is not a given.
And that leads to the fact that any “quantum” cannot be homogeneous inside - so what is inside each quantum?

You are presuming it is the same in each quantum. But by referring to it as a quantum we simply mean that it is a presence in a system.
Formally, there is nothing inside of it that isnt made explicit by its role in the system.
Whatever is in the quantum but not observed in terms of a system, is logically inscrutable, yet it may in stand forth in larger systems.
RM presumes to be able to designate that role in advance on a categorical, scale, but I say it can not be done, for the following reasons;

In mathematics thus also in RM,
1=1.
But that presumes that “1” equals “1” and nothing else. That is, a sign without content.

To me, 1>0<1’, and onward >0<1’’ and so forth, would be required to do maths with VO.

Whatever “1” is meant to designate in the universe, thus whatever holds ontological value, is more than just a number. “1” can never apply to the universe if it is truly and fully equal to another instance of “1”,

This is not merely theoretical but practical. If we apply the integers to hydrogen atoms, protons, or electrons for example, that is, units of which we know that they have the same mathematical values in terms of their mass and their charge, then it appears that we can not hold 3 atoms in the same framework as we can hold 2 atoms. With every added integer, a new system occurs. A system of 2 atoms is in turn not the same as a system of 1 atom. Only a system of 1 atom is equal to that same system, but this is fully tautological and may serve no sneaky function inside a true system. I thus reject “A”=“A” as a philosophic premise, just as I reject “tree” = “tree”. I can only concur that hydrogen atom’>(no atom)<hydrogen atom’'.
meaning: a hydrogen atom is as much more atomic mass than zero as another hydrogen is.

They are not equal to each other, and any representation of than as such is guaranteed to disregard or misapprehend their function in a system.

This means that VO can work with an indefinite amount of systems, known and unknown, without distorting logical procedure; it means that whatever occurs as certainty is fully local, based in empirical truth, what actually happens, conscious experience; it is therefore not a metaphysics. It is a method without prescriptions of any kind, other than that the subject must be able to be interpreted as existent. Strangely enough, there are laws, limits emanating from this requirement. Such as, for example, that units fitting in any system may not be infinitesimal; because infinitesimals do not amount to systems like integers do.as I described above; they do not bring about interactive paradigms, thus no increase in dimensions, thus no fractals, no “chaos”.
Chaos is the order that exists between orders.
An hermetic instance of VO logic stands amidst the chaos as a source and coordinator, a master signifier, in whose terms his surrounding may be coherently understood, but in whose terms another master-signifier may not necessarily be understood. One MS merely equals No MS to the same measure as the next MS. They do not compute with each other, therefore do not equal each other in terms that apply to either one of them.

This is, incidentally, why 1 is not a prime.
A prime must have 2 signifiers; “1” and themselves. In “1”, the second signifier is only a formal derivative of the first. So between the lines of what is instantly explicit,
1 is not a mathematical object in the same way that the primes are.
Strange atractors are consequences of properties that are not instantly explicit, but become manifest only when a system takes on a certain degree of complexity.
The increase of complexity is never so great as when 1 is added to 1; from there on the complexity sometimes slowly increases, then suddenly quadratizes, perhaps becomes infinite for a while until it is reduced into a structure next; the only consistency there is in increase of complexity with increase in units, is consecutive ‘beauties’ of signifiers. ‘beauty’ is how we apprehend a truth, a Thing, which carries a chaotically unfolding range. In mathematics, the primes are the beauties and the range is the range of primes, which is undecipherable in other terms than in primes.

I don’t think that is true at all. It applies to the language of numbers - not to the continuum of reality.

That is what started the speculation - it was a theory that MAYBE the universe is made of bubbles of energy. But eventually it was found to be false.

And that was discovered to be merely the effects of trying to measure with instrumentation that requires levels of energy before they register. Their averaging into bubbles of energy is what forced them to claim that the universe is granular.

What you first said was that AO implies granularity - it doesn’t. Then later you stated that AO implies a continuum that QM has proven to be wrong - but QM didn’t prove it to be wrong - They found that they were wrong - but it is still a useful way to calculate by pretending granularity - unless they get into certain circumstances - then it completely falls a part.

When you are talking about the smallest possible “step” or grain - there can be nothing inside that is smaller. And that requires that the inside is homogeneous - and that is impossible.

And that makes it homogeneous.

:laughing:
You really should lay off the self medicating.

1 equals 1 because it is defined that way as a declaration within the language of maths.

I don’t understand what that red part means. It is apparently not maths.

1 doesn’t apply to the universe. It applies to our mind’s attempt to deal with the universe. And it isn’t a perfect way - which is why (\pi) is called “irrational” - it cannot be exactly represented by numbers.

You are conflating the language “A” with a physical object. “A” is only a linguistic object - not representative of a physical object. The rule is - “Be consistent with your language - ensure that your ‘A’ is always exactly the same as any other ‘A’ you mention.”

QM states that they are exactly identical in physical characteristics. AO states the they are not. You seem to be agreeing with AO.

From what I can tell AO is far far more “complete” than VO.

In VO -

  • why does light travel at that particular speed?
  • why does the universe exist at all?
  • why does mass form?
  • why does mass fall to entropy in a deep deep vacuum?
  • what is a black hole made of?
  • why do planets orbit?
  • why does a mass particle become smaller and more dense when surrounded by other mass?
  • why does the path of light bend around heavy mass objects?

Ask any of your QM professors those questions - they can’t answer either. But AO does.

It can be. There is exactly one glass on my table. That’s me applying the word “one” to the universe and doing so with perfect accuracy. Don’t believe it? Come be my guest. But of course, we’ll have to agree on the meaning of words first. Otherwise, all observation is useless. At the same time, there is exactly one bottle on my table. In other words, the quantity of bottles and the quantity of glasses currently present on my table is (1) and so the two quantities are equal. It makes no sense whatsoever to say “There is exactly one bottle on my table and exactly one glass on my table but the quantity of bottles and glasses on my table is nonetheless not the same”.

One common retort goes something like “But that glass on your table isn’t a single thing, it’s actually many things! See, it’s made out of many atoms – not just one!” And while I agree that the glass on my table is many atoms, I disagree that it’s not a single thing. It is. It is both one thing (e.g. one glass) and many things (e.g. many atoms.) It all depends on what you’re counting. If you’re counting atoms, it’s many apples. If you’re counting glasses, it’s exactly one glass.

Another common retort goes sometihng like “Since the glass on your table is made out of a different number of atoms than the bottle on your table, it follows that the number of glasses and the number of bottles currently resting on your table is not equal.” Again, it all depends on what you’re counting. If you’re counting atoms, the number of atoms constituting the glass may not be the same as the number of atoms constituting the bottle. But that’s not what we’re doing here. We’re asking how many glasses versus how many bottles. Not how many atoms in glasses veruss how many atoms in bottles. So this isn’t a good retort either.

It’s all just a linguistic mess.

That is exactly what I said - your attempt to describe the universe with a number or word - creating discontinuity distinctions - a “rough mental map” - perfect only to the degree that it relates to what you have deemed distinctions. The universe itself has such thing as “1” or “one”. The universe doesn’t have discontinuity from one thing to another. It merely has more or less of its substance (call it whatever you like).

“There is exactly one glass on my table” is an exactly true description of reality. It’s not a rough mental map. I think that’s where we disagree.

What do you mean by “The universe has one”? That doesn’t seem intelligible. It makes sense to say “The universe has one glass” or “The universe has one unicorn” but it doesn’t make sense to leave out the thing that we’re quantifying (unless it is somehow implied.)

Also, what do you mean when you say “The universe doesn’t have discontinuity from one thing to another”? I understand what it means to say that space is continuous – it simply means that for every two points in space there exists another point in between the two points. Another term is “infinitely divisible”. And though I don’t dispute that, I don’t see how it relates to FC’s rejection of the Law of Identity and how it implies that “The universe does not have one”.

Im glad Magnus at least discerns the error in James’ attempts at logic.

Quote : “When you are talking about the smallest possible “step” or grain - there can be nothing inside that is smaller. And that requires that the inside is homogeneous - and that is impossible.”

Homogeneous is not the correct word here.

The correct concept is that it has so much energy that everything combined couldn’t split it.

Possibly there is some last thing that’s still smaller then the smallest thing
And that is like the very quinessential nothing Russian doll-the know, do, and feel nothing of the ultimate nothingness of veritable reverberation below the level of self reflection.

That binds all succeeding projectiles, aimed at two particles simultaniously.

When that happens, destruction is absolutely conjunctive with reconstruction.

That is exactly what I meant - the universe has no “one” concerning it. The universe can have one OF something that You have mentally isolated as an “object” of interest.

What I mean is that on the very ultra tiny scale there is no discrete boundary between things. The atoms are sharing their energy with the space around them - there is no finite border - except to the perception limits of an observer.

“Identity” is a mental construct. The universe has no such mental constructs. The universe has higher and lower regions of energy. It wouldn’t know a horse from an apple. The universe has no knowledge. The universe has no concepts. The universe does not think (except within the creatures who think). The universe has no language. To the universe there is no such thing as “1” - a maths concept.

Science has proven that to be incorrect as well.