so,
affectance ontology is a statistical algorithm based on the axiomatic values of infinitesimals.
A Newtonian universe, with its perfect proportions and smoothly gliding systems, would possibly be perfectly implicated in such a formula.
The paradigm of Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg and the other quantum observers, is based on the observation that the increase and decrease of powers in a body is not a smooth transient but rather consists of actual steps. This requires a different math, things can not be rounded off, because the differences are structural when they are numerical rather than “spatial”. Primes can be studied at work in the behavior of compounds as secret resistors, hidden possibilities which come out only in very large computations can be expected. The universe would be highly dimensionalized even at a primordial level.
We would be even smaller than we are taught and yet, as mathematicians, might be greater than anything could be in a transient universe.
The numerical basis of the physical universe is rather a study of values; additions and multiplications, comparisons and categorizations, random values to differentials like tastes to biological balances, a world only decipherable through integrity of observation with respect to interpretation, as an a priori intuition. (normally the order is reversed except in such things as NLP and executive office training programs as well as brainwashing programs like mass religion and media, it is thus implicit in education but not a MO, it is on the lower side of the veil, the student must still pierce the veil with his own will)
So there, as I do not doubt that James is a great scientist, and his technologies are very likely true and worthy of being known by the world, I refute the ontology of affectance infinitesimals on the basis of the findings of Bohr, Heisenberg and Planck, and the others. Their world is the true world, which is to say >the illusion<. That which we must transcend if we are to be part of it.
All that matters is the quantum of power that you are. All else is dyscalculia.
A very important note here; I do not assert or think necessarily that numerical is an exclusive quality. I would think the universe is not sufficiently defined as having a numerical engine. Quality is implied by the presence of value, as well. Even if perhaps only a single quality.
Pushing this rather crucial point which can not possibly be conclusively decided, I am not sure that numericalness could count as this single quality. Not sure that it cant either. How the hell could I begin to discern anything in the very beginning without presumption? But that is what mathematics really is, observing without interpreting. There is great beauty in that, perhaps the same beauty is in the fact of numbers. Perhaps all the subtlety and sense in the world is a numbers game. Perhaps that is why guys who play numbers enjoy themselves so much. Interesting. In short there is no gamble to AO, no shortcuts, no wormholes, no luck and no unfairness - all is just consequence quantities. But numbers are not merely quantities, they are structures, they have greater and lesser integrities.
Numbers are thus a priori to any affective quality. The number two is a priori to any interaction whatsoever. And yet the number 1 exists. Even if he is hard to see…