Universe and Time

[Arminius]

For example:

"EMR" as such can be explained physically, has a "physical" definition, although we know, that all definitions are linguistical / logical. Both "affect" and "affectance" as such can't be explained physically, haven't "physical" definitions, although we know, that all definitions are linguistical / logical. Both "affect" and "affectance" as such have "metaphysical" definitions, and we know, that all definitions are linguistical / logical.

I'm guessing that by "general", "metaphysical", and "logical", you mean "abstract". All changing is physical. The physical universe is nothing but the changing. And nothing changes unless it is physical.

The most fundamental changing (thus affecting and being affected) is that of the electric potential. As the electric potential changes, electromagnetic waves are formed. As those EMR waves travel about, they form the entire rest of the physical universe.

So a specific example of a physical "affect" is an EMR propagating wave. Physical "affectance" is the ocean of such subtle propagating EMR waves that forms the entire universe (or any portion within).

And another more common word for "affect" or "affectance", although sometimes abused, is "energy".

RM: AO is a daring metaphysics, because the modern physicist might feel threatened.

[James S Saint]

RM: AO is a daring metaphysics, because the modern physicist might feel threatened.

"Might"???
"Scared shitless" is more like it. Quantum physics and Relativity are cults, religious pseudo-science. And me being on one of their forums is like Jesus preaching in the Jewish temple.

QP and Relativity are merely convenient engineering tools used for predicting things with which they have had experience. They do not describe reality, but rather merely say, "it is as if reality is quantized and relative so we can [sometimes] presume reality to be quantized and relative and predict what will happen with QM and Relativity equations." It is common practice in engineering to use approximate and simplified models in order to get the job done, even though the engineer knows that the model is limited and only accurate within certain specific environments.

But as a cult, they lustfully try to convince the world that they are "the voice of God" and the only truth (saying "mathematics is the language of God"). They conflate their model with reality and proclaim that reality IS the model. And when the model doesn't work, they proclaim that Reality doesn't work. They have boldly announced that "reality isn't logical" - a very anti-science, cultist stance.

And even though they are the ones being cultish, they will very quickly proclaim that I am "merely a religious crackpot". The fact that they can find no error in my reasoning merely scares them more. They will not debate me, or at least not in public. They have a very serious ego/pride problem.

And even though it is illegal to preach religion in public schools in the USA, quantum physics and relativity are the new USA's national religion (and the new secular world religion) taught in all schools and universities as "the only truth". And it is indoctrinated with the same harsh threats as any religion has ever practiced, "believe what we say or else!!" (the exact opposite of Science).

Quantum Physics is a mathematical fairy tale, complete with fairies, ghosts, and goblins, highly dependent upon magic. Relativity is a limited engineering convenience. Both have been made into the cultic secular religion, more pretentious, superficial, and superstitious than the other religions ever were. And just as Constantine plowed through Europe establishing the Holy Roman Empire of Christianity by demanding belief or be burned by their wizardry, the Secularists rampage the world demanding belief or be blown up by their technology.

"Feel threatened" is a serious understatement. They could no more accept me than the pharisees could accept Jesus.

[Arminius]

Quantum physics and Relativity are cults, religious pseudo-science. And me being on one of their forums is like Jesus preaching in the Jewish temple.

This could be my signatue, ... if I had one.

QP and Relativity are merely convenient engineering tools used for predicting things with which they have had experience. They do not describe reality, but rather merely say, "it is as if reality is quantized and relative so we can [sometimes] presume reality to be quantized and relative and predict what will happen with QM and Relativity equations." It is common practice in engineering to use approximate and simplified models in order to get the job done, even though the engineer knows that the model is limited and only accurate within certain specific environments.

But as a cult, they lustfully try to convince the world that they are "the voice of God" and the only truth (saying "mathematics is the language of God"). They conflate their model with reality and proclaim that reality IS the model. And when the model doesn't work, they proclaim that Reality doesn't work. They have boldly announced that "reality isn't logical" - a very anti-science, cultist stance.

And even though they are the ones being cultish, they will very quickly proclaim that I am "merely a religious crackpot". The fact that they can find no error in my reasoning merely scares them more. They will not debate me, or at least not in public. They have a very serious ego/pride problem.

And even though it is illegal to preach religion in public schools in the USA, quantum physics and relativity are the new USA's national religion (and the new secular world religion) taught in all schools and universities as "the only truth". And it is indoctrinated with the same harsh threats as any religion has ever practiced, "believe what we say or else!!" (the exact opposite of Science).

Quantum Physics is a mathematical fairy tale, complete with fairies, ghosts, and goblins, highly dependent upon magic. Relativity is a limited engineering convenience. Both have been made into the cultic secular religion, more pretentious, superficial, and superstitious than the other religions ever were. And just as Constantine plowed through Europe establishing the Holy Roman Empire of Christianity by demanding belief or be burned by their wizardry, the Secularists rampage the world demanding belief or be blown up by their technology.

"Feel threatened" is a serious understatement. They could no more accept me than the pharisees could accept Jesus.

One can learn (whatever) from your RM:AO, and that (and not "off topic" [for example: "post a picture of yourself"]) is crucial. Strange that so few members of this forum are interested in RM:AO. And the reason for this is not that they would have understood anything of it. That's funny, isn't it?

[James S Saint]

Learning RM:AO today is much like learning today's physics or digital computing 500 years ago. What would you use it for?

Science took off only because it was involved in weaponry, first in wars between nations then in wars between governments and their populous. And that is still its only use.

Religion took off thousands of yeas ago only because of its use for governing and controlling populations. And now the new symbiosis of those two is the new rage playing out and keeping people occupied trying to govern with their new toy. They aren't really interested in any kind of truth, merely in whatever yields more control. Today "progress" means "greater control over others".

So right now, RM:AO is too early for Mankind to be interested. He is too busy playing with last year's toys to be interested in anything newer or better. And since governing in a socialistic society involves controlling thought, he is very slow to learn. He spends generations convincing people of his last "truth" regardless of any better thought. He suppresses, represses, and oppresses in order to get the most from what he already had. And during that process, he inadvertently becomes dependent upon the structures formed by his prior efforts. He becomes enamored and invested in his paradigm thus very seriously dislikes any changes or challenges to it. Man is made of lustful religiosity.

RM:AO is left for the very few serious deep thinkers who want to know "what is really going on" and have the courage to reject what they have been told by the authority figures who were propped up for their admiration and faith. And as one can imagine, anything that answers everything isn't going to be a trivial thing. I didn't design AO with the intent of answering all questions through a "Grand Unified Theory". It just turned out that way. But of course, as always, almost no one really cares.

Societies are far more based upon "going along to get along", agreeing to whatever, supporting whoever, saying whatever, doing whatever, all just to get along with the boss. Anyone "out of line" is dubbed a "malcontent", "clandestine", "whistle-blower", "untrustworthy", or just plane "crackpot". The focus in societies is loyalty, not truth. And usually at the expense of never discovering truth because they are fully involved in maintaining confusion and deception in order to maintain control aimed toward ensuring that the wealthiest people, although already worth over $100 trillion, get even wealthier.

So the only use for RM:AO in today's world is in design efforts concerning immediate person to person psychology, not manipulating the masses. Social engineers are already fully occupied in the mass programming endeavor and aren't interested in anything new or different. Thus it is like introducing physics into society 500 years ago. The only people who would care would be those who are actively oppressing anything alien to their paradigm. And of course, their interest in it isn't kindly.

This site has almost no serious deep thinkers who also have the courage to disagree with mainstream. So I am not at all surprised by the lack of interest. RM:AO is a complicated subject, worthy of years of college study and requiring serious mental changes in perspective. This site is more for the casual thinker who most often is just toying with fanciful notions, never really expecting to believe anything he reads or even says. And then of course, there are those bent on ensuring that everyone else is complying to the new paradigm and order of thought, harassing and reporting anyone out of line.

And if I was here to "preach to and convert the masses", I would be going about it very differently. I am not like the doctor who comes up with what he believes to be a miracle cure for something and then immediately goes spraying it into the public water supply. I believe in clarifying and verifying BEFORE preaching to the public (unlike the mainstream engineers). So it isn't entirely an issue of suppression. I am not interested in starting a new religion, but rather getting the story straight. Religions have a history of totally corrupting their founding principles.

Interestingly, RM:AO:Sociology and Psychology are largely about Clarifying and Verifying and thus corrupting the story once it is learned is really tough, unlike the social mindsets and paradigms before it. RM is not about any kind of faith, but about verifying on even the lowest level of society. So once it gets started from some interest, it isn't likely to go away nor be corrupted into another delusion and make-believe paradigm. Thus it is even more important to get it straight before dumping it into the waters.

But then also, RM:AO:Sociology/SAM is inherently self-correcting. So even if it got corrupted, it would merely take a little while to get the story straightened up again. RM, like a black-hole, is a persistent little bugger, taking any and all crap in, but letting only the purest form of energy back out. It would just be nice if it were a little simpler to learn. And some day it will be.

No one in an ancient Roman pub would have been interested in learning physics or digital computing. Most still aren't.

[Arminius]

Interestingly religion and science are much closer than most people believe. Sometimes they are so similar that one may think they were one and the same..

RM:AO does not fit into the present day; the time of RM:AO is going to come and perhaps will be known and used by more people than today, provided that there will be human beings.

[James S Saint]

Interestingly religion and science are much closer than most people believe. Sometimes they are so similar that one may think they were one and the same..

They have been made into the same, except Science is now actually more of a religion than Religion.

RM:AO does not fit into the present day; the time of RM:AO is going to come and perhaps will be known and used by more people than today, provided that there will be human beings.

Any time, and every time, that life is pushed too much in any direction (such as toward dark deceit), a tipping point is reached where life is inspired to push back in the opposite direction. That is called an "induced reaction" (associated to magnetism and induced currents and works for the same reasons). RM:AO is the opposite direction to the current societal push. RM:AO is altruistic. The current push is deception.

So not only will RM:AO have a time in the future, but will be demanded due to the oppressions, suppressions, and repressions of today. Today's dark, maniacal socialism is the very cause and inspiration of tomorrow's bright, altruistic constitutionalism (SAM), just as Europe's imperialism(s) was the inspiration of America's Constitutionalism.

The difference is that once RM:AO:SAM hits the scene, it doesn't push and thus doesn't inspire its opposite, but instead inspires more of the same (much like constitutionalism did). But even more certainly, it grows and doesn't go away. It actively resists corruption. And everything that pushes away from it, merely inspires it to grow or appear if it hadn't been or return if it had been forsaken. SAM is the "Dam" in Ahdam. And PHT is the "Ah".

The very objective of life is to convert the universe into life ... permanently. RM:AO is all about certainty and permanence.

[Arminius]

Existence is that which has affect.
....
A clump of affectance noise forms around a point of inertia due to extended delays and is supported only by affectance leaving the volume at an equal rate as entering it forming a stable "Particle" – a “standing wave” of noise.

So first there is (exists) an affect or an affektance, then a noise or even a noise-clump, and only after that there is a particle.

[James S Saint]

Existence is that which has affect.
....
A clump of affectance noise forms around a point of inertia due to extended delays and is supported only by affectance leaving the volume at an equal rate as entering it forming a stable "Particle" – a “standing wave” of noise.

So first there is (exists) an affect or an affectance, then a noise or even a noise-clump, and only after that there is a particle.

If thought about in sequence, that is true, although I would say, "first there is an affect. Then many affects as noise. Then clumps of noise - a particle". But the universe has always had all of that concurrently happening. There was never a time when there is only one affect, nor a time when there were no particles.

[Arminius]

Existence is that which has affect.
....
A clump of affectance noise forms around a point of inertia due to extended delays and is supported only by affectance leaving the volume at an equal rate as entering it forming a stable "Particle" – a “standing wave” of noise.

So first there is (exists) an affect or an affectance, then a noise or even a noise-clump, and only after that there is a particle.

If thought about in sequence, that is true, although I would say, "first there is an affect. Then many affects as noise. Then clumps of noise - a particle". But the universe has always had all of that concurrently happening. There was never a time when there is only one affect, nor a time when there were no particles.

But at least as long as living beings, and especially human beings, will exist there will also be the questions: "what was before 'Y'?", "what was before 'X'?", "...?", and so on.

[James S Saint]

But at least as long as living beings, and especially human beings, will exist there will also be the questions: "what was before 'Y'?", "what was before 'X'?", "...?", and so on.

That is much like the questions concerning why the Sun and Moon rise and fall, what are those little sparkly things in the night sky, and from where did Man come? Do you still ask those questions with any substantial doubt? Answers are first invented to satisfy the populous, but eventually there is enough education around that people stop asking ... and caring.

This is similar to your End of History thread. There is a "End of Questioning" except by the young.

[Fouty1952]

think that the subject/object dualism is one of the greatest philosophical problems - perhaps even the greatest.

How can we and especially each of us ever experience whether the subjective or the objective side is the "truth"?

[Arminius]

But at least as long as living beings, and especially human beings, will exist there will also be the questions: "what was before 'Y'?", "what was before 'X'?", "...?", and so on.

That is much like the questions concerning why the Sun and Moon rise and fall, what are those little sparkly things in the night sky, and from where did Man come? Do you still ask those questions with any substantial doubt?

I simply wanted to make an important note that concerns the asking for developments. Asking for the "before" does not always refer to physics.

Time and the "house of development":

_______________________| History |
___________________|___ Evolution ___|
______________|______ Development ______|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________ Time
___________________________________________________________

When we ask for "change", we can only do it with the knowledge of "time". The general aspect of change is called "development" (by me). So history depends on evolution, development, and time; evolution depends on development and time; but development itself merely depends on time. So time is probably eternal because it is universal or cosmic; and perhaps development is also eternal; but evolution and a fortiori history are not eternal - they can end.

An analogy:

___________________| Culture/Nature |
________________|______ Culture ______|
___________|________ Nature/Culture _______|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________ Nature
___________________________________________________________

So nature (compare: physics and chemistry) is probably eternal because it is universal or cosmic; and perhaps nature/culture (compare: biology and ecology/economy) is also eternal; but culture (compare: seniotics and linguistics) and a fortiori culture/nature (compare: philosophy and mathematics) are not eternal - they can end (because neurons, brains, extensive and complex brains, mind, especially in a sense of "Geist", are needed). Unfortunately most of the scientists and even philosophers neglect the latter, although it is the highest level. In the case of scientists, it does not surprise me, because they have, especially at present, the task is to serve the rulers. But in the case of the philosophers, it surprises me a bit. If humans really were free (they are not!), they would not neglect the culture/nature (compare: philosophy and mathematics) because they would more try to transport it in reality and in their everyday life.

If there is no awareness of time, then no change or development can be observed; if change or development can not be observed, then evolution can also not be observed; if evolution can not be observed, then history can also not be observed. Backwards: If history can be observed, then evolution, development and time can also be observed; if evolution can be observed, then development and time can also be observed; if development (change) can be observed, then time can also be observed, then there is a awareness of time.

What does that mean for life?

Life is perhaps eternal (see above). And according to RM:A0 life is eternal, isn't it, James? As a result of that statement it depends on life itself to take its chance for eternalness (if it is a chance ). Universe and time are probably eternal, but life is only perhaps eternal. According to the current mainstream sciencists and to the current mainstream philosophers these issues are as good as non-existent because they have to serve the rulers, and the rulers are no friends of nature, so they are probably also hostile, tired of life.

[James S Saint]

Universe and time are probably eternal, but life is only perhaps eternal.

It bothers me that you still think that is merely "probably eternal".

[Ben JS]

Time ≡ the measure of relative change.

I agree with James on this point, as I've said it myself independently of James.

Time does not cause change, it measures it.

Time is not an effect.

Dimensions are a construction of man, projected onto reality.

It serves our interests very well, but they are abstract. They are not a true account of reality.

Confusion is caused when expect reality to obey by our projections.

The confusion is highlighted by a question like, 'How big is the universe?'

It's inconceivable that there's an edge to universe. Because, what's beyond that edge?

-

Nothing doesn't exist. To attribute nothing to something, is to disregard it's relevance. That something is still there, you're just ignoring it.

'What's that in your pocket?' - 'Oh, nothing. Don't worry about it.'

Same goes for dimensions. 'These are the dimensions of the table' - 'What's beyond the table?' - 'Not relevant. Focus on the bloody table.'

-

Existence is eternal.

Life dies. It may be recurring, as I believe, but that doesn't mean it's without end and beginning.

==
==

James has a chip on his shoulder about Science, and throws it all into the same boat.

Because I'm lazy, I'll just quote some dude on the net:

The important difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements, that neither can be proved or disproved, and science evolves from relative truths and statements, that can be testified and proven false (which means: science has to develop, in order to replace (partly) untrue theories, and replace them with better ones).
Science does not claim it has absolute knowledge on anything. Religion claims it has.

All scientific theories are in principle disprovable, and in the end all theories will be disproven (at least it can be shown there is a limiting case in which the theory does not work).

Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute either to it's proof. It is also unprovable.

-

For reference, my conclusions were in response to a thread of James'.

James - The 6 Dimensions of Spacetime

Me - Time & Life

Do you see the confusion in James' thread? How he speaks of time?

[James S Saint]

The only "chip on my shoulder" concerning Science is that it is taken as "the truth" to the point of indoctrinating millions of people into believing that it is fact, all other religions are false, suppressing anyone who says otherwise, and teaching it in schools while disallowing the other religions to be taught. The USA was not to have a national religion, but it does.

None of the major religions; Judaism, Christianity, Islamism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientism have been proven wrong. Nor have they been proven right. Each and every one accepts only what has not been proven wrong... but really?

I fully support the methodology of Science. It is the indoctrination of Science theories while suppressing any discussion of alternatives that I seriously object to. Christianity prosecuted Galileo for claiming that the world wasn't the center of the universe. Science prosecutes anyone who says that Relativity and/or Quantum Physics isn't fact. I have proven even more profoundly than Galileo that Relativity is false. Something actually proven to be false is being indoctrinated into millions of people as fact - that is worse than mere RELIGION.

[Ben JS]

I'm not bothered to argue with James.

But as he just demonstrated, he has a very large chip on his shoulder.

I recommend everyone keep this in mind when he talks of Science. A grain of salt, if you will.

-

For your convenience -

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

OR

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

OR

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

[James S Saint]

I'm not bothered to argue with James.

That's good, because you aren't qualified nor capable.

But as he just demonstrated, he has a very large chip on his shoulder.

... as you are now demonstrating about yourself.

For your convenience -

Science is [the Presumption of] a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes [Presumed] knowledge (beliefs) in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

OR

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the [Presumed] structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through [Presumptuous] observation and experiment.

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

OR

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power (a theory), especially a personal God or gods (a Principle or principles).

[Arminius]

Time does not cause change ....

Time is not an effect.

In this thread you can't find any word, sentence, or text that says "time causes change" or "time is an effect". Nobody has said that in this thread.

If there were no time, then you would not be able to measure any change. That is what I said. So, according to the emaning of time, there is no disgreement between James and me. Change can only be measured by time and be represented as development (the most cases), or evolution (many cases) and history (few cases). What I make is a kind of linguistic classification. If you don't know which change is meant - development, evolution, or history -, you should just say "change" because it is a superordinated word, or "development" because it can also be used for the words "evolution" and "history".

[Ben JS]

I agree, Arminius.

I didn't mean to imply someone had in this thread.

[Arminius]

What do you think about the differences relating to "change"? What do you think about "development", "evolution", "history", their differences?

When some people talk about "nature" or about "universe and time", they don't make any difference and say for example "'history' of the nature", "'history' of the universe", ... and so on, or "'evolution' of the nature", "'evolution' of the universe", ... and so on. That's not necessarily wrong, but to me the adequate word for the describing of the natural or universal "change" is "development" (or "change" itself) and not "evolution" or even "history".

[Arminius]

James, you are speaking of "positive noise" and "negative noise", also of "positive waves" and "negative waves". How much is that in accordance with the positve and negative particles?

[James S Saint]

James, you are speaking of "positive noise" and "negative noise", also of "positive waves" and "negative waves". How much is that in accordance with the positve and negative particles?

That is a anime pic of positive, negative, and neutral "noise" made of positive and negative "waves" (or "wavelets"). Each of those is a particle. They have a Lorentzian density curve of wave(lets) causing the formation of the "particles". And each of those applies, not merely to physical reality (physics), but also to; sociological, psychological, and economic reality. Each has its own form of "particle". And each is made of positive and negative noisy wavelets.

Those are only the monoparticles such as electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. Or single memories, single-priority groups, and monetary banks/savings. For each of those monoparticle types, a polyparticle type can form with a limited stability; anti-protons ("negatrons"), protons, neutrons. Or collections of associated memories/thoughts, multi-priority groups (such as a family), multi-monetary banks (savings or collections from different sources or currencies).

All levels of life, thought, and existence can be understood as groupings of noisy positive and negative wavelets of influence/affects. Order is created from the natural groupings of noisy particles known as "matter" or "material concerns".

And in all things, a negative is no more than merely the lack of a positive affectance. A negatively ordered house is merely a house less orderly than the average (ambient). Ugliness is merely the lack of average or expected beauty. And interestingly, as the Catholic Church teaches, Evil is merely the lack of the average or expected Good.

A wise man doesn't think in terms of positive and negative except relative to a known expectation. To the wise man, all things are simply different levels of positive/good. But that doesn't mean that nothing gets rejected from a particular setting. Things that are less good are still certainly filtered out when attempting to form a more positive setting. They are just never proclaimed absolutely negative, bad, or of no use at all for anything. To the saint, in reality, there is no negative (although there can certainly be a very substantial lack of positive).

[Arminius]

But why is - or even must be - „a negative ... merely the lack of a posive affectance“? Does „negative“ affectance not esxist? Is affectance always „positive“?

It is natural and mostly also useful to have opposites, contrasts, enemies, dualisms, ... etc.. The universe is made of opposites. We would therefore violate our nature, if we were not in accordance with it.

[James S Saint]

But why is - or even must be - „a negative ... merely the lack of a posive affectance“? Does „negative“ affectance not esxist? Is affectance always „positive“?

It is natural and mostly also useful to have opposites, contrasts, enemies, dualisms, ... etc.. The universe is made of opposites. We would therefore violate our nature, if we were not in accordance with it.

Can you name anything in nature that has an actual opposite? All things have a form of opposition to their existence, but what has an actual opposite? Nature has many things that have lesser forms and are called "opposite" or "negative" by subjective comparison (relative to some average or some expectation). But what would be the opposite of a squirrel, river, rain, tree, apple, or rock that isn't merely a greater or lesser form relative to a chosen standard of the same kind of thing?

And affectance certainly has no opposite, nor does gravity or mass (both merely being affectance). We call a charge the opposite of another, but what we see with RM:AO, is that in reality, a negative electric charge particle is merely a concentration of lesser charge than the ambient and positive is merely a greater charge than the ambient.

[Arminius]

All things have a form of opposition to their existence, but what has an actual opposite?

I meant that form of opposition.

And affectance certainly has no opposite, nor does gravity or mass (both merely being affectance). We call a charge the opposite of another, but what we see with RM:AO, is that in reality, a negative electric charge particle is merely a concentration of lesser charge than the ambient and positive is merely a greater charge than the ambient.

Why do you then calling the charges "positive" and "negative" instead of "greater charge" and "lesser charge"?