Page 9 of 34

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:52 am
idioticidioms wrote:Can you divide 2 by absolute infinity?

Can you divide an rectangle, by a square-circle?
... same issue.

Arminius wrote:According to your "RM:AO" existence is that which has affect, and an affect can only derive from the potential-to-affect (to alter or to change), PtA, of another separate or distinguished affect. Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist. Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added. Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either.

Due to the above, in all adjacent locations, the potential for affect cannot be infinitely identical.

"According to...", but you aren't certain? Seems like it.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:50 am
Can you divide an rectangle, by a square-circle?
... same issue.

Then how do they know that absolute zero is one divided by absolute infinity?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:16 am
idioticidioms wrote:
Can you divide an rectangle, by a square-circle?
... same issue.

Then how do they know that absolute zero is one divided by absolute infinity?

Logic dictates that they are the same thing. They don't "derive it", it is a matter of definitions.
Absolute greatness and absolute smallness are inverse concepts. Mathematically represented by a "division".

And btw, I have been waiting (for quite some time - years) for someone to bring up the one small "trick" to this issue. There is more to be considered. I have been disappointed that no one has discovered it. But such is the way of the today's world.

James S Saint wrote:
Jakob wrote: If every infinitesimal deviates by absolutely zero from its predecessor, then the accumulative deviation is still zero.

Or?

Something that the world of mathematics seems to have overlooked;
Absolute infinity cannot logically exist physically nor conceptually, "you can always add 1".
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, such as an electric 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.

Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology 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.
RM:AO wrote:An afflate is a small formless portion of a totally pure ever changing, ever yielding substance (Affectance). Actual things such as particles can only emerge due to such constant and chaotic giving up of influence, not taking such as to maintain anything. Affectance is "bitless", void of individuality within. It merely varies in degree of pure changing potential.

I might add that value is an issue of quality, not quantity.
And thus Value Ontology must remain quantitiless, else also be logically invalid, aka "broken ontology, BO".

And perhaps a couple of illustrations will help;

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.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:34 pm
idioticidioms wrote:Can you divide 2 by absolute infinity?

Do you really don't know the answer?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:37 pm
James S Saint wrote:
idioticidioms wrote:Can you divide 2 by absolute infinity?

Can you divide an rectangle, by a square-circle?
... same issue.

Arminius wrote:According to your "RM:AO" existence is that which has affect, and an affect can only derive from the potential-to-affect (to alter or to change), PtA, of another separate or distinguished affect. Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist. Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added. Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either.

Due to the above, in all adjacent locations, the potential for affect cannot be infinitely identical.

"According to...", but you aren't certain? Seems like it.

Yes, that's right. I am not certain. And that has very much to do with "absolute zero is ... one divided by absolute infinity"! (See below).

When I read your text I knew that your ontology is based on definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, "RM:AO".

James S Saint wrote:
idioticidioms wrote:
Can you divide an rectangle, by a square-circle?
... same issue.

Then how do they know that absolute zero is one divided by absolute infinity?

Logic dictates that they are the same thing. They don't "derive it", it is a matter of definitions.
Absolute greatness and absolute smallness are inverse concepts. Mathematically represented by a "division".

And btw, I have been waiting (for quite some time - years) for someone to bring up the one small "trick" to this issue. There is more to be considered. I have been disappointed that no one has discovered it. But such is the way of the today's world.

I have discovered it. But I "accepted" it because I was not certain about my answer to your question due to your statement "absolute zero is ... one divided by absolute infinity". (See above).

When I read your text I knew that your ontology is based on definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, "RM:AO".

James S Saint wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Jakob wrote: If every infinitesimal deviates by absolutely zero from its predecessor, then the accumulative deviation is still zero.

Or?

Something that the world of mathematics seems to have overlooked;
Absolute infinity cannot logically exist physically nor conceptually, "you can always add 1".
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, such as an electric 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.

Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology 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.
RM:AO wrote:An afflate is a small formless portion of a totally pure ever changing, ever yielding substance (Affectance). Actual things such as particles can only emerge due to such constant and chaotic giving up of influence, not taking such as to maintain anything. Affectance is "bitless", void of individuality within. It merely varies in degree of pure changing potential.

I might add that value is an issue of quality, not quantity.
And thus Value Ontology must remain quantitiless, else also be logically invalid, aka "broken ontology, BO".

And perhaps a couple of illustrations will help;

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.

That's not a problem of geometry, but of number theory and of the most mathematical branches, and therefore of mathematics at all anyway.

When I read your text I knew that your ontology is based on definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, "RM:AO".

I think that the "small 'trick'" you mentioned has been overlooked for so long because of the attention only on the definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, "RM:AO".

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:08 pm
I assume that you are familiar with Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno was saying the same thing that I am.

Distance is a qualia that is infinitely divisible. If you look at the distance between yourself and the doorway and realize that you would have to get half way to the door before you could get to 3/4 distance before you got to 5/8th before you got to 11/16th before ... ..., you could never get to the doorway.

Thus there can never be absolute zero distance between you and the door, because absolute zero doesn't exist ... unless you resolve Zeno's paradox.

Affectance is also infinitely divisible. Thus Affectance cannot be reduced to zero for the same reason, but in the case of Affectance, the solution to Zeno's paradox does not apply.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:24 pm
James S Saint wrote:I assume that you are familiar with Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno was saying the same thing that I am.

Yes, I am famiiar with the pardoxes of Zenon the Eleate (b.t.w.: there is another Zenon, who lived about one century later: Zenon the Stoic). The pardoxes of Zenon of Elea are a set of philosophical problems, for example: "Achilles and the Tortoise" and "Arrow paradox".

James S Saint wrote:Distance is a qualia that is infinitely divisible. If you look at the distance between yourself and the doorway and realize that you would have to get half way to the door before you could get to 3/4 distance before you got to 5/8th before you got to 11/16th before ... ..., you could never get to the doorway.

Thus there can never be absolute zero distance between you and the door, because absolute zero doesn't exist ... unless you resolve Zeno's paradox.

Affectance is also infinitely divisible. Thus Affectance cannot be reduced to zero for the same reason, but in the case of Affectance, the solution to Zeno's paradox does not apply.

Yes, and I alraedy understand that affectance cannot be reduced to zero for the same reason when I read your fundamentals of your "RM:AO" for the first time - and b.t.w.: that was the reason why I didn't mention the mathematical, but only the definional-logical aspect (your ontology is based on definional logic).

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:46 pm

But why doesn't it apply to the reduction of Affectance?
Why can't Affectance ever get to zero?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:24 am

But why doesn't it apply to the reduction of Affectance?
Why can't Affectance ever get to zero?

The error of the paradox "Achilleus and the Tortoise" is the failure to recognize the fact that the only mathematically infinite divisibility of a line or a length of time does not mean anything against their concrete finiteness.

In the case of affectance this must be different by defintion. Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist. Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added. Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either. So by definition absolute zero can't exist. The concrete line and time length of the paradox "Achilleus and the Tortoise" is finite, although the mathematical divisibility is infinte. Therefore it is a paradox. But according to "RM:AO" the concrete line and time length of the universe is infinite. That's the difference between the paradox "Achilleus and the Tortoise" and the definitional logic of "RM:AO".

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:16 am
The "small trick" that I mentioned earlier is that absolute zero can only exist by one of the following means;
1) in the imagination, such as an average or the non-existence of a mentally defined object.
2) by dividing a quantity by anything infinitely larger (or multiplying by anything infinitely smaller)

To have infinite homogeneity or infinite similarity, there must be infinite similarity between every point in the universe. Using a Cartesian system, there are 3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 points in the entire universe. To have absolutely zero affectance in the universe (zero existence) would require that all of those points be infinitely similar.

If we assign an affectance value of X to a point in space, every other point must be exactly equal to X. Each point has the possibility of being anywhere from 0 to infinite in its value. So the possibility of another point being that same X is 1/infinity. "1/infinity" is one infinitesimal, "0+", not zero. So the possibility of merely two points being exactly similar still isn't zero. So at this point, we can't say that there is no possibility of the universe being infinitely homogeneous.

If we consider another point, our possibility of all 3 of them being exactly similar is one 1/infinity times 1/infinity, or;
P = 0+^2, an infinitely smaller possibility of the 3 points being exactly similar... but still not exactly zero.

But then, the universe isn't made of merely a few points. The Cartesian model allows for 3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 points. So the possibility becomes;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 - 1), an infinitely, unimaginably smaller possibility than before... but still not exactly zero.

So far, we used the standard Cartesian model of a universe to define our infinitesimal. But the truth is that even within the space of one infinitesimal, there is yet another infinite number of points. So a dimensional line would actually have, not infinity^2 points as the standard would imply, but rather infinity^3 points and 3/4*Pi*infinity^9 points throughout. That changes our possibility considerably;

P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^9 - 1), an infinitely, unimaginably smaller possibility than before... but still not exactly zero.

But why stop at merely allowing a line to have infinity^3 points?. Why not infinity^4 or infinity^78? The truth is that there is no limit to how many points we can assign to a line, so lets just call it "n", yielding;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^n - 1), where "n" can be anything.

But as long as n is any number, the possibility will still not be absolutely zero. And the truth is that n can be all but "absolute infinity". So, let's limit n to "the largest possible number" and call it "Largest".

Now we have the equation;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^Largest - 1), as the possibility of all points being exactly similar.

And since "0+" merely means "1/infinity", we can rewrite the equation as;
P = 1/infinity^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^Largest - 1)

But how can we have infinity raised to the Largest possible number without it being larger than the Largest possible? It is an impossible number. So what we have deduced is that in order to get the possibility of all points in the universe having exactly similar affect value there must be a number that is larger than the Largest possible. And there isn't one.

Thus, the possibility of all points in the universe being exactly similar is;
P = 1/(an impossibly large number) = Absolute Zero

And that is how you discover that the universe has absolutely zero possibility whatsoever of not existing at any time. The universe could never have begun to exist because it could never have not existed in the first place. It is a mathematical impossibility. Nor can the universe suffer "entropy death" and the thought of such is merely a mild form of terrorism.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:21 pm
James S Saint wrote:The "small trick" that I mentioned earlier is that absolute zero can only exist by one of the following means;
1) in the imagination, such as an average or the non-existence of a mentally defined object.
2) by dividing a quantity by anything infinitely larger (or multiplying by anything infinitely smaller)

Yes, and what the most people you asked overlooked was the mathematical aspect (=> 2) because they were too much engaged in your "RM:AO", in metaphysics, in ontology, in definitional logic ..., and therefore they overlooked and afterwards didn't mention the mathematical aspect.

James S Saint wrote:To have infinite homogeneity or infinite similarity, there must be infinite similarity between every point in the universe. Using a Cartesian system, there are 3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 points in the entire universe. To have absolutely zero affectance in the universe (zero existence) would require that all of those points be infinitely similar.

If we assign an affectance value of X to a point in space, every other point must be exactly equal to X. Each point has the possibility of being anywhere from 0 to infinite in its value. So the possibility of another point being that same X is 1/infinity. "1/infinity" is one infinitesimal, "0+", not zero. So the possibility of merely two points being exactly similar still isn't zero. So at this point, we can't say that there is no possibility of the universe being infinitely homogeneous.

If we consider another point, our possibility of all 3 of them being exactly similar is one 1/infinity times 1/infinity, or;
P = 0+^2, an infinitely smaller possibility of the 3 points being exactly similar... but still not exactly zero.

But then, the universe isn't made of merely a few points. The Cartesian model allows for 3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 points. So the possibility becomes;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 - 1), an infinitely, unimaginably smaller possibility than before... but still not exactly zero.

So far, we used the standard Cartesian model of a universe to define our infinitesimal. But the truth is that even within the space of one infinitesimal, there is yet another infinite number of points. So a dimensional line would actually have, not infinity^2 points as the standard would imply, but rather infinity^3 points and 3/4*Pi*infinity^9 points throughout. That changes our possibility considerably;

P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^9 - 1), an infinitely, unimaginably smaller possibility than before... but still not exactly zero.

But why stop at merely allowing a line to have infinity^3 points?. Why not infinity^4 or infinity^78? The truth is that there is no limit to how many points we can assign to a line, so lets just call it "n", yielding;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^n - 1), where "n" can be anything.

But as long as n is any number, the possibility will still not be absolutely zero. And the truth is that n can be all but "absolute infinity". So, let's limit n to "the largest possible number" and call it "Largest".

Now we have the equation;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^Largest - 1), as the possibility of all points being exactly similar.

And since "0+" merely means "1/infinity", we can rewrite the equation as;
P = 1/infinity^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^Largest - 1)

But how can we have infinity raised to the Largest possible number without it being larger than the Largest possible? It is an impossible number. So what we have deduced is that in order to get the possibility of all points in the universe having exactly similar affect value there must be a number that is larger than the Largest possible. And there isn't one.

Thus, the possibility of all points in the universe being exactly similar is;
P = 1/(an impossibly large number) = Absolute Zero

That's well known, James - it has to do with mathematics for a 14 to 16 year old pupil.

James S Saint wrote:And that is how you discover that the universe has absolutely zero possibility whatsoever of not existing at any time. The universe could never have begun to exist because it could never have not existed in the first place. It is a mathematical impossibility. Nor can the universe suffer "entropy death" and the thought of such is merely a mild form of terrorism.

That was my answer (with other words).

But please don't forget: mathematical impossibility and physical impossibility are not always the same, are not always consistent. What is mathematically possible does not always have to be also possible in reality, and what is possible in reality does not always have to be also mathematical possible.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now I have to go to in a few miles distant place to see the final football match of the FIFA World Cup: Germany - Argentina. My tip: 3 - 0.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 5:03 pm
In in the next hours you can't reach me by posting.

I will be back later, perhaps tomorrow.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:11 pm
Arminius wrote:But please don't forget: mathematical impossibility and physical impossibility are not always the same, are not always consistent. What is mathematically possible does not always have to be also possible in reality, and what is possible in reality does not always have to be also mathematical possible.

As long as the definitions are applicable, they will be the same thing. Mathematics is just logic applied to quantities, but you have to make certain the quantities being referred to (the "definitions") make rational sense.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:41 pm
Arminius wrote:That's well known, James - it has to do with mathematics for a 14 to 16 year old pupil.

Really?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:36 pm
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:That's well known, James - it has to do with mathematics for a 14 to 16 year old pupil.

Really?

Really what? Well known? Or that it has to do with mathematics for a 14 to 16 year old pupil?

And besides all mathematics: Do you have an answer to the question why the universe must be an eternal one? (Remember: besides mathematics; so please don't say that it has to be because of mathematics!).

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:41 pm
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:That's well known, James - it has to do with mathematics for a 14 to 16 year old pupil.

Really?

Really what? Well known? Or that it has to do with mathematics for a 14 to 16 year old pupil?

Can you provide a link where my explanation is obviously "well known" by anyone, young or old?

Arminius wrote:And besides all mathematics: Do you have an answer to the question why the universe must be an eternal one? (Remember: besides mathematics; so please don't say that it has to be because of mathematics!).

Mathematics is merely logic applied to quantities. To dismiss mathematics is to dismiss logic. Without logic, all you have to go on is sensed impressions, rumors, and faith that someone else magically knew void of reasoning. But then how do you know who to listen to other than those same gut feelings?

The question is one of Logic. Logic is the only way to actually answer the question and that includes Mathematics.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:00 pm
James S Saint wrote:Can you provide a link where my explanation is obviously "well known" by anyone, young or old?

What you explained has to do with your "RM:AO". It is derived mathematically, but not merely a mathematical theme. I meant the mathematics behind your "RM:AO", not the "RM:AO" itself, when I said "well known".

James S Saint wrote:Mathematics is merely logic applied to quantities. To dismiss mathematics is to dismiss logic. Without logic, all you have to go on is sensed impressions, rumors, and faith that someone else magically knew void of reasoning. But then how do you know who to listen to other than those same gut feelings?

The question is one of Logic. Logic is the only way to actually answer the question and that includes Mathematics.

Mathematics and logic are not always congruent, else they could be synonyms, but they are not synonyms.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:31 pm
Arminius wrote:Mathematics and logic are not always congruent, else they could be synonyms, but they are not synonyms.

Math is constructed almost entirely of logic applied strictly to quantities only. Logic is a broader category. There are a few rare cases where math forgoes logic. As far as I know those are only concerning issues involving infinity and zero. So in my explanation, I fill in that disconnection as per Edwin Hewitt and Hyperreals. Standard mathematics doesn't deal with powers of infinity, nor powers of infinitesimals. But to see the logic of why anything exists at all, one must look into those relationships. So I explain them as part of the whole explanation concerning why there can never be a state of nothingness.

In short, whatever math was lacking, I filled in with logic. And the math is pretty trivial.

But without the logic/math concerning powers of infinity, "Hyperreals", any explanation is going to be incomplete.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 12:41 am
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:Mathematics and logic are not always congruent, else they could be synonyms, but they are not synonyms.

Math is constructed almost entirely of logic applied strictly to quantities only. Logic is a broader category. There are a few rare cases where math forgoes logic. As far as I know those are only concerning issues involving infinity and zero. So in my explanation, I fill in that disconnection as per Edwin Hewitt and Hyperreals. Standard mathematics doesn't deal with powers of infinity, nor powers of infinitesimals. But to see the logic of why anything exists at all, one must look into those relationships. So I explain them as part of the whole explanation concerning why there can never be a state of nothingness.

In short, whatever math was lacking, I filled in with logic. And the math is pretty trivial.

But without the logic/math concerning powers of infinity, "Hyperreals", any explanation is going to be incomplete.

That's what I meant, but I used some other words.

JSS wrote:Because the potential to affect is not identical anywhere, actualization of affect takes place everywhere.

But would the actualization of affect also take place then, if the potential to affect were identical?

JSS wrote:As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude.

Why randomly? Probably because of the different adjacent potentials, directions, and magnitudes, right?

JSS wrote:When propagating waves of affect act upon the same point, their affects are added.

It's like speed everywhere - except speed of light. But does your RM:AO accept the "law" that the speed of light is the limit of speed in the universe?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:53 am
Arminius wrote:But would the actualization of affect also take place then, if the potential to affect were identical?

Nothing can affect anything if it is being equally affected in return by that same thing. So if the potential to affect is exactly similar ("identical") everywhere, then there is no potential to affect anywhere. The affecting would be absolutely zero = nothingness (which is why it is important to treat everyone exactly the same, so that society (or at least the lower class of it) will become nothing = nihilation).

Arminius wrote:
JSS wrote:As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude.

Why randomly? Probably because of the different adjacent potentials, directions, and magnitudes, right?

Right, until there is something to establish a pattern or order, there is only disorder or randomness, "Nothing is possible until something is impossible".

Arminius wrote:
JSS wrote:When propagating waves of affect act upon the same point, their affects are added.

It's like speed everywhere - except speed of light. But does your RM:AO accept the "law" that the speed of light is the limit of speed in the universe?

The speed of Affect, is a logical derivation lacking any alternative regardless of what anyone measures and in Science is called "the speed of light in a (total) vacuum", even though a truly total vacuum can't really exist. The actual maximum speed of light in a total vacuum can never be measured, only derived. But there is a different kind of speed involving the mind that can be faster than light.

The mind defines objects and can do so such as to conclude that the object in question is actually moving faster than light. I ran across that problem when I emulated RM:AO, as my PC kept detecting particles moving faster than affect/light. I eventually discovered that it was reporting particles as a clump of noise, just as I had told it to do. But the center of the clump was moving faster than any of the affects that made it up. This turned out to be interesting, but not really of much value. What it amounted to was the speed of something depends on how you define that something.

The speed of simple affect is a similar derivation to that involving why the universe exists in the first place. It involves the powers of infinity and infinitesimals and is as follows:

The Speed of Affect/Light
The smallest distance possible is 1/(the Largest distance possible, or "Largest number possible") ≡ "Smallest".
The shortest time possible is also 1/(the greatest change rate possible, or "Largest number possible") ≡ "Smallest".
The largest distance possible is simply the Largest number possible ≡ "Largest.

The fastest speed is the Largest Distance / Smallest Time, which is not possible because that is a number larger than the largest possible number.

So the fastest speed possible can only be expressed as either;
1/Smallest = Largest, or
Largest/1 = Largest.

Affect propagates by affecting the next closest point (Smallest distance) in the shortest possible time (Smallest). Or the velocity (v) going from point A to the next point B is;
v = d/t, or
v = Smallest / Smallest = 1, because they are the exact same power and magnitude of infinitesimal. And that is a finite number even though derived by infinite numbers. The finite is derived by the infinite.

And 1 infinitesimal, I refer to as "0+", is
0+ = Smallest * (Largest / infinity) = (Smallest*Largest) / infinity = 1/infinity

Which is to say that in order for an affect to propagate even one infinitesimal (0+) distance, it must affect the "Largest/infinity" number of points in the Smallest amount of time each, which takes 0+ time. And to reach a distance of 1, it must do that an infinite number of times (0+ * infinity = 1, again because they are the same power and magnitude of infinity).

So even though Affect is affecting at the Largest possible infinite rate, it still takes a finite amount of time to gain a distance of merely 1. And in RM:AO, I refer to that distance as "1 toe". And the time it takes for the fastest possible affect to travel one toe distance is, "1 tic" (both by definition).

So the maximum speed of affect is 1 toe/tic, a finite number, which concurrent physics defines (very relevant) as 299,792,458 m/s. So,
1 toe/tic = 299,792,458 m/s by definition.

And if physics would more exactly define its sizes of particles, mass, energy, or other relevant elements in their ontology and I could get the more sophisticated mathematics worked out involving affectance particle sizes, amount of affectance, or notable speeds, I could tell them the perfectly exact length required of one meter and one second according their their own definitions. Or if they define other elements exactly, I could tell them if their speed of light was actually perfectly accurate (or anyone else could for that matter).

The bottom line is that Definitional Logic dictates truth. Scientific observation can merely confirm it.

And btw, when it comes to affects crossing each other's path, I mentioned that they slow each other. It should be obvious now that the reason they must slow is that their intersection point is already changing at the Largest possible rate merely by one of them. When there are two, that point must either change at twice the Largest possible rate, or the affecting must divide its propagation speed. Since there can be no "twice the Largest possible", the only logical alternative is that the propagation rate of the two affects is slowed.

And that is occurring at every point throughout the entire universe. Because that is occurring literally everywhere, the actual speed of affect or of light can never be the ideal maximum. All of space is filled with conflict and thus all things are delayed from the ideal. And when too much gets into conflict, a stable "traffic jam" occurs. A "Particle of Matter" forms out of the Logic of simply the necessary existence of Affect upon Affect, "Affectance".

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:29 pm
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:But would the actualization of affect also take place then, if the potential to affect were identical?

Nothing can affect anything if it is being equally affected in return by that same thing. So if the potential to affect is exactly similar ("identical") everywhere, then there is no potential to affect anywhere. The affecting would be absolutely zero = nothingness (which is why it is important to treat everyone exactly the same, so that society (or at least the lower class of it) will become nothing = nihilation).

Arminius wrote:
JSS wrote:As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate randomly in both direction and magnitude.

Why randomly? Probably because of the different adjacent potentials, directions, and magnitudes, right?

Right, until there is something to establish a pattern or order, there is only disorder or randomness, "Nothing is possible until something is impossible".

Arminius wrote:
JSS wrote:When propagating waves of affect act upon the same point, their affects are added.

It's like speed everywhere - except speed of light. But does your RM:AO accept the "law" that the speed of light is the limit of speed in the universe?

The speed of Affect, is a logical derivation lacking any alternative regardless of what anyone measures and in Science is called "the speed of light in a (total) vacuum", even though a truly total vacuum can't really exist. The actual maximum speed of light in a total vacuum can never be measured, only derived. But there is a different kind of speed involving the mind that can be faster than light.

The mind defines objects and can do so such as to conclude that the object in question is actually moving faster than light. I ran across that problem when I emulated RM:AO, as my PC kept detecting particles moving faster than affect/light. I eventually discovered that it was reporting particles as a clump of noise, just as I had told it to do. But the center of the clump was moving faster than any of the affects that made it up. This turned out to be interesting, but not really of much value. What it amounted to was the speed of something depends on how you define that something.

The speed of simple affect is a similar derivation to that involving why the universe exists in the first place. It involves the powers of infinity and infinitesimals and is as follows:

The Speed of Affect/Light
The smallest distance possible is 1/(the Largest distance possible, or "Largest number possible") ≡ "Smallest".
The shortest time possible is also 1/(the greatest change rate possible, or "Largest number possible") ≡ "Smallest".
The largest distance possible is simply the Largest number possible ≡ "Largest.

The fastest speed is the Largest Distance / Smallest Time, which is not possible because that is a number larger than the largest possible number.

So the fastest speed possible can only be expressed as either;
1/Smallest = Largest, or
Largest/1 = Largest.

Affect propagates by affecting the next closest point (Smallest distance) in the shortest possible time (Smallest). Or the velocity (v) going from point A to the next point B is;
v = d/t, or
v = Smallest / Smallest = 1, because they are the exact same power and magnitude of infinitesimal. And that is a finite number even though derived by infinite numbers. The finite is derived by the infinite.

And 1 infinitesimal, I refer to as "0+", is
0+ = Smallest * (Largest / infinity) = (Smallest*Largest) / infinity = 1/infinity

Which is to say that in order for an affect to propagate even one infinitesimal (0+) distance, it must affect the "Largest/infinity" number of points in the Smallest amount of time each, which takes 0+ time. And to reach a distance of 1, it must do that an infinite number of times (0+ * infinity = 1, again because they are the same power and magnitude of infinity).

So even though Affect is affecting at the Largest possible infinite rate, it still takes a finite amount of time to gain a distance of merely 1. And in RM:AO, I refer to that distance as "1 toe". And the time it takes for the fastest possible affect to travel one toe distance is, "1 tic" (both by definition).

So the maximum speed of affect is 1 toe/tic, a finite number, which concurrent physics defines (very relevant) as 299,792,458 m/s. So,
1 toe/tic = 299,792,458 m/s by definition.

And if physics would more exactly define its sizes of particles, mass, energy, or other relevant elements in their ontology and I could get the more sophisticated mathematics worked out involving affectance particle sizes, amount of affectance, or notable speeds, I could tell them the perfectly exact length required of one meter and one second according their their own definitions. Or if they define other elements exactly, I could tell them if their speed of light was actually perfectly accurate (or anyone else could for that matter).

The bottom line is that Definitional Logic dictates truth. Scientific observation can merely confirm it.

And btw, when it comes to affects crossing each other's path, I mentioned that they slow each other. It should be obvious now that the reason they must slow is that their intersection point is already changing at the Largest possible rate merely by one of them. When there are two, that point must either change at twice the Largest possible rate, or the affecting must divide its propagation speed. Since there can be no "twice the Largest possible", the only logical alternative is that the propagation rate of the two affects is slowed.

And that is occurring at every point throughout the entire universe. Because that is occurring literally everywhere, the actual speed of affect or of light can never be the ideal maximum. All of space is filled with conflict and thus all things are delayed from the ideal. And when too much gets into conflict, a stable "traffic jam" occurs. A "Particle of Matter" forms out of the Logic of simply the necessary existence of Affect upon Affect, "Affectance".

Why do you refer to "1 toe" and "1 tic"? In order to be in compliance with a condition named "speed of light" (299 792 458 m / s) ?

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:15 am
Arminius wrote:Why do you refer to "1 toe" and "1 tic"? In order to be in compliance with a condition named "speed of light" (299 792 458 m / s) ?

I derived a unit of measure from pure logic (the speed of affect). I don't know that anyone has ever done that before. And I had to name it something.

In common science, units of measure have always been based on observables, how long it takes the pendulum to swing, how long a chosen rod is, how flat something is, and so on. But RM:AO is different;

RM:AO starts from the most humble position of knowing nothing at all, "the nothingness". And builds on only what can be 100% certain so as to reach up to what is "somethingness". Whereas physics starts with what it presumptuously thinks it can see, despite how many times it has discovered the flaws in its perception.

My "speed of affect" is pure logic that is related to an observable, the observable speed of light. But their units of measure are all about perceptions, not realities. But when they defined their speed of light, they stepped into my realm of certainties and spoke of an item with which I could relate. Their units of "meters and seconds" are meaningless to me, but velocity isn't.

And even though I can now say that my 1 toe per tic is exactly equal to their 299,792,458 meters per second, I still can't tell you how long a toe or tic is in physics terms. So I still build certainty in the logical paradigm of AO, but I have to use only terms of certainty in doing so, "toes" and "tics", not questionable units such as "meters" or "seconds".

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:40 am
According to RM:AO: 1 "toe" <=> 299 792 458 Meters and 1 "tic" <=> 1 second, because you are saying "1 toe/tic = 299,792,458 m/s by definition".

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:06 am
Arminius wrote:According to RM:AO: 1 "toe" <=> 299 792 458 Meters and 1 "tic" <=> 1 second, because you are saying "1 toe/tic = 299,792,458 m/s by definition".

No, no.

In RM:AO 1 toe/tic is equal to 299,792,458 m/s.
That is not the same as saying that 1 toe = 299,792,458 m.

The ratio of toe to tic is the same as the ratio of meter to seconds times 299,792,458.
But 1 toe might be 10^-6 meters making 1 tic equal to 3.33*10^-15 seconds.

The ratio is all I know for certain and only because they made it a definition.

### Re: Universe and Time

Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:43 am
If one says "the distance between A and B is 60 km" and one needs "one hour to get from A to B", than the speed is 60 km/h, but one one could also say the speed is "A to B / h".

If one says "ten minutes are one x" and "the distance between A and B is 60 km" and "the speed is 60 km/h", then one one could also say the speed is "360/x" or "6 (A to B) / x".