Mithus wrote:James,
When in Physics two positive or two negative charged particles repell each other, what does that mean in terms of PHT? Don't positive urges just add and lead to a more general positive attitude?
James S Saint wrote:PHT Attraction
Emotional focus and energy comes upon a hope that addresses a perceived threat. A star is brightest in the midst of a dark sky and your attention is captured by the distinction. Equally within the mind, it is amidst danger that an avenue of hope is given focus and energy. And that star of hope is mentally "attached" to the threat that it addresses because it directly affects the threat. Similarly, given a bright hope, any threat to that hope is quickly given attention. By thus, perceptions of positive and negative are "attracted" to each other and associated in the mind. If you hope to keep your computer running well, attend to the threat of viruses. The two concerns become directly associated in your mind, especially after traumatic experience.
The objects merely migrate into the more dense region of space. In most circumstances that is the region directly between the two or more mass objects. But such isn't always true. A dense region of space CAN BE intentionally formed off to one side or even in the opposite direction, causing the objects to not migrate toward each other, but to a different point in space. And it can even be arranged that they migrate away from each other entirely, resulting in "anti-gravity" behavior.
Mithus wrote:The objects merely migrate into the more dense region of space. In most circumstances that is the region directly between the two or more mass objects. But such isn't always true. A dense region of space CAN BE intentionally formed off to one side or even in the opposite direction, causing the objects to not migrate toward each other, but to a different point in space. And it can even be arranged that they migrate away from each other entirely, resulting in "anti-gravity" behavior.
With regards to PHT, does this happen, when a person denies the perception of a possible hope or a possible threat? When, for example the "optimist" doesn't want to pay any conscious attention to anything negative – "normalcy bias"?
Mithus wrote:Well, I'm neither a psychologist nor a physics-expert, but having read your Affectance-Ontology, I find it interesting how you explain human behavior on the basis of those physical concepts.
Mithus wrote:You wrote there, for example: „As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate chaotically in both direction and magnitude creating an ocean of affectance noise.“
Adjacent potentials, are they like situations/perceptions of hope and/or threat, which exist independenly from each other? Which psychological effect does it have when an affect occurs between them and why does it propagate then chaotically?
Mithus wrote:Taking your example of a woman, who's way to dress I might regard as "whorish". If my perception of her gets influenced through media, other people or whatever, who are all telling me that the way she dresses is a fashion now, the latest trend and a "must" for all modern women who look after themselves, and I can see now lots of women dressed up like this, my whole attitude might change due to this manipulation, given that it's easy to influence me. So my perception of something "bad" changes to a perception of something "good" (or from negative to positive). I've learned that a particle cannot just change it's charge. How do you explain this change of PHT-values?
James S Saint wrote:Mithus wrote:Taking your example of a woman, who's way to dress I might regard as "whorish". If my perception of her gets influenced through media, other people or whatever, who are all telling me that the way she dresses is a fashion now, the latest trend and a "must" for all modern women who look after themselves, and I can see now lots of women dressed up like this, my whole attitude might change due to this manipulation, given that it's easy to influence me. So my perception of something "bad" changes to a perception of something "good" (or from negative to positive). I've learned that a particle cannot just change it's charge. How do you explain this change of PHT-values?
Although a valid and understandable question to ask, it poses a significant number of physics and philosophy issues to be addressed. The first of which is the philosophical issue of Theseus' Ship - at what point of substitution do we say that it is a different ship?
To convert and electron into a positron, you would first have to remove the negativity of the electron. That would require that you obtain the technology to actually hold an electron in place while you manipulate it .. not currently possible. But even with that technology provided, an electron is made of nothing but negativity. Removing all of the negativity leaves absolutely nothing, no empty shape or form to be filled, but simply nothing at all. A positron can then be either created or more simply just moved into the former electron's position. Then you could say that you "converted" the electron to a positron. But more likely, you are going to say that you simply replaced the electron after destroying it. It is actually just a matter of semantics, as is Theseus' Ship.
But perhaps the more relevant issue involves the sizes of the kinds of things we have been discussing.
When I used a woman as something from which a propagation of PHT might occur, I was very, very far from referring to a "subatomic particle". The word "particle" merely refers to anything very tiny, but in the realm of physics, a "subatomic particle" is not merely tiny, but ultra, extremely tiny and more importantly, the smallest possible physical stable form. And as tiny as women might get, they very, very seriously come no where close to the smallest or simplest stable entities within the construct of perception.
The human eye can see something about 0.1 millimeters width (10^-4 meters). An atom, and all atoms are roughly the same size, is about 10^-10 meters, 0.0000000001 meters. That is a difference of about one MILLION times smaller than a human eye could see. But guess what. A proton subatomic particle is roughly 100,000 times smaller than that at about 10^15 meters. But it doesn't end there. An electron is roughly 1000 times smaller than that at 10^18 meters - 0.000000000000000001m.
That puts the electron and positron particles at roughly one MILLION times smaller than one MILLION times smaller than anything the human eye could ever see. The human mind cannot fathom such a range of size. And such is the case when it comes to the most fundamental, nearly nonconvertible, "particles" of PHT.
A single atom is made of many subatomic particles so far distant from each other than if you could actually see one electron, you could not see the orbited nucleus that is 1000 times larger because it would be 50,000 times further away. Molecules are then formed by atoms being fairly close together yet forming molecule chains anywhere from just a couple to trillions of atoms long. And from those are formed cells that are 10,000 times larger. And from trillions of those, is formed a woman. The difference in size and complexity is unfathomable.
The point is that the normal objects of perceived value, such as that woman, are invariably extremely complex combinations of much, much smaller intuitive PHT concerns, so small as to be undetectable by the conscious mind. They exist in the realm of the "subconscious" and even "unconscious" mind and are usually referred to a "an intuitive sense". So whether the "subatomic" form of PHT particle could be converted is seriously irrelevant because there is nothing your conscious mind could perceive that comes anywhere close to being the most fundamental impetus for PHT evaluation. And that means that pretty much anything that you can perceive can be converted from a positive to negative PHT perception or vsvrsa. Smelly ugly things can become alluring attractive things .. or vsvrsa. It is all a matter of proper programming.
Reversing the PHT charge of most concerns would be about like reversing the static charge of a Van De Graaff generator. The reverse charged particles or waves must be pumped toward the object while the formers are pumped away. Such is referred to as a "catharsis", flooding the mind with a particular "charge".
Arminius wrote:Maybe Mithus wants to compare that "change of PHT-values" with a decay like the following one: After about 10.25 minutes a neutron (neutral charge) decays into a proton (positive charge), an electron (negative charge) and an antineutrino (no charge).
James S Saint wrote:If you have read my posts on Affectance Ontology, then no doubt you have read me say that AO is a true "Unified Field Theory", UFT, and "Grand Unified Theory", GUT. The exact same principles from AO apply to literally ALL sciences; physics, psychology, politics, economics,...
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:Maybe Mithus wants to compare that "change of PHT-values" with a decay like the following one: After about 10.25 minutes a neutron (neutral charge) decays into a proton (positive charge), an electron (negative charge) and an antineutrino (no charge).
The intent of my last post was to express that one cannot compare the perception of a human with the behavior of a subatomic particle. Although one can compare such a perception with an amount of charge that, when very stable, can be thought of as a "particle that is charged", like a charged spec of dust, just not subatomic because subatomic particles have no substructure like a nervous system interfering with their dynamics. The mind is still built upon and sensitive to its physical biochemical substrate, the brain, thus its perceptions are never as pure as physical subatomic particles.
James S Saint wrote:Beyond that, one must be careful when speaking Quantum Particle Physics Ontology. The word "particle" in quantum physics is no more than a number used to account for an amount of something otherwise unaccounted for, much like the square root of a negative number - purely imaginary.
A neutrino is an actual physical particle, much like an electron void of charge. But an "anti-neutrino" is not an actual particle at all, not really even a virtual particle. The idea of "anti-neutrino" refers to a neutrino amount of energy that is missing from the surrounding environment. But quantum theory physicists do not like to refer to anything except as a "particle", a quanta (in their mathematics).
A proton is at a lower entropy than a neutron. It has more energy than a neutron. So for them to say that a neutron "decays" into a proton, is another misuse of the language (they seem to love doing that - semantics). When a neutron becomes a proton, it absorbs a positron worth of charge and a neutrino amount of mass. So in Quantum Physics Ontology, there is a missing amount of charge and mass from the surrounding universe. So to call out the missing amount of positive charge, the same amount of negative charge is claimed to be generated into the universe from the change, an "electron". And to call out the amount of missing mass, a "negative-mass" particle, an anti-neutrino is claimed. Neither the electron, nor the negative-mass particle physically exist as real particles. They are merely referred to as "particles" so as to account for the amount of missing charge and mass energy. An objective in Quantum Physics is to ensure that in all things, there is a zero-sum.
It is a little dangerous to the mind to casually step in and out of different ontologies (language issues and thus logic issues arise), especially ontologies that are incomplete, such as Quantum Physics and Relativity.
Mithus wrote:James S Saint wrote:If you have read my posts on Affectance Ontology, then no doubt you have read me say that AO is a true "Unified Field Theory", UFT, and "Grand Unified Theory", GUT. The exact same principles from AO apply to literally ALL sciences; physics, psychology, politics, economics,...
Yes, but for people like me, who are not familiar with Physics, it can become difficult to translate it all into the language of Psychology. In your ontology you wrote that "there is a limit to the rate of adding affects/influences, when affects merge in such a way as to require more than an infinite change rate, a maximum change rate point, MCR point, forms and as the participating affects continue to attempt adding at the same location, any additional followup propagating affects must wait for time to pass. - "Inertia".
I understand that this is the precondition for the forming of a particle, or, in other words, "the mass particle of the spirit". What equals this MCR point in Psychology, which causes a delay of further influences? I imagine something like a sensory overload, which has an inhibiting effect to the receptivity of the mind, so that the mind has to filter out useful from useless information, in order to form an understanding.
But that might be completely wrong. Sorry, if I confuse this all.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:The biological organ has analogy to physics, it's just that the physics you have been taught (rigid bodies) does not apply here. Rigid body is a simplification of physics (simplified physics) useful to simulations. Actual physics is fluid body physics, all things (even light) uses fluid body physics and so does the brain.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:However, the brain is more complicated than that, it is a logic center with various logic modes and operations...Logic modes are associated with physical conditions (such as flow of electricty in ON state and no flow in OFF state.) However to simplify it to one single On/Off state as implied in the OP is an oversimplification.
Mithus wrote:In your ontology you wrote that "there is a limit to the rate of adding affects/influences, when affects merge in such a way as to require more than an infinite change rate, a maximum change rate point, MCR point, forms and as the participating affects continue to attempt adding at the same location, any additional followup propagating affects must wait for time to pass. - "Inertia".
I understand that this is the precondition for the forming of a particle, or, in other words, "the mass particle of the spirit". What equals this MCR point in Psychology, which causes a delay of further influences? I imagine something like a sensory overload, which has an inhibiting effect to the receptivity of the mind, so that the mind has to filter out useful from useless information, in order to form an understanding.
Mithus wrote:In your ontology, a list of 33 points, you wrote at the end, that each of those fundamentals have an equivalent within each and every field of study.
So far you covered in this thread the subjects of attraction and repulsion, gravity, gravitational migration, positive and negative charge and interaction, General Relativity, propagation of affect, speed of propagation, MCR, Inertia and Mass. Did I leave something out?
Mithus wrote:To get a better understanding of the analogy between particle physics and psychology, I would like to go on with those points in your affectance-ontology. One of the following subjects is the issue of „remaining stable“. You wrote that particles, in order to remain stable, absorb noise of their own polarity and continue to deliver strong waves. Concerning PHT, this is quite clear to me.
Mithus wrote:But then, the next point is: „When a small negative particle approaches a larger positive particle, the smaller particle grows asymmetrically with its greater increasing noise closer to the larger positive particle.“
When the mind filters out those negative influences to keep it's (positive) emotional charge, what does it mean that those influences still increase and grow „asymmetrically“?
James S Saint wrote:
one must be careful when speaking Quantum Particle Physics Ontology
Users browsing this forum: No registered users