RM AND VO

All observations are probabilistic in nature. One cannot, through observation alone know of anything with certainty… ever. Logic is required to know with certainty.

My concern earlier was your statement that you begin with observations. That cannot be. Every observation assumes a great many things merely to form the picture that you consider “an observation”. Thus RM:AO begins with logic, specifically Definitional Logic. Thus RM:AO begins with what has no choice but to be true, although being “true” at that stage is not of necessary concern. The trick is to then ensure that each logic step remains perfect so that where ever the logic leads, the same degree of absolute truth follows.

Only the present “exists” (“has affect”). The future is the present’s Effect. And the past is the present’s affector.

Their image exists, not them. What you experience, the affecting, occurs through and after time has passed (again by necessity of “affecting”).

You are never affected immediately by any affector. The amount of time that passes between the affector and the affected is what determines what we call “distance”. Physical distance is caused by the effort of light to propagate. The act of recording or documenting slows the propagation into a “particle” (something that doesn’t change much at all). Once that happens, the particle (the documentation, video recording, what ever) can continue to affect even though the original affector has passed away. The stars that you see might not exist at all anymore. You are being affected by the residual effects, “documented” merely by the time it took for their image to get to you. Their image has been stored in space via propagation, but is dissipating.

It is easy to think that chemistry doesn’t reflect reality until you come to fully understand chemistry. All complex or all encompassing ontologies will require a great deal of study before one can say that the ontology doesn’t reflect their observations. Nothing is more all encompassing than RM.

My point is that the “observation” already has presumed reasoning within it that must be humble to reconsideration. What you think that you see, might not be what you actually see. The cognitive mind can construct an ontology that can be used to verify that the subconscious’s natural ontology and reasoning was or wasn’t accurate. Many things turn out to be “counter intuitive”.

That is absolutely impossible. “This universe” and “affectance” are the same thing, merely differing in perspective. Affectance necessarily includes all physical existence, by definition. But Affectance Ontology goes beyond merely the physical universe. RM:AO also includes the “Conceptual Realm” (or mental realm, divine realm, spiritual realm, or whatever names it has been given). There can be nothing real that has been excluded. If a “consciousness” by your definition exists, it is a part of the Affectance. But it implies a complex thing and thus isn’t a part of the initial explanation that must begin with the simplest concepts possible.

“Fixed and not random”???
If you mean that it always obeys the same rules or principles, then you are right. There is no possibility of it ever being other than it is and thus doing what it does. But since the entire universe is formed by what it does, what need is there for it to be different?

Consider that they really are “obeying the rules” and it is merely your misunderstanding of those rules that makes it appear as though they aren’t. Again, your observations can trick you because they naturally presume reasoning that has not been verified.

“Random behavior” merely means behavior that you don’t know enough about to predict. The word “random” directly infers ones lack of knowledge. The universe itself can never have anything whatsoever actually disobeying exact laws/principles. But to predict behavior requires extreme knowledge of the current state. If total knowledge of the current state down to the most infinitesimal detail is know, the entire future can be exactly predicted without a single flaw. But good luck gaining such knowledge.

You are presuming that before learning of it. But you cannot prove your supposition, because it happens to not be true.

I am forever struggling with “tool” issues concerning JiB. Progress has become extremely slow. My equipment is very limited. And my brain “ain’t what it used to be”.

James,

As we narrowing down at the issue, i am finding it difficult what and how to say. Give me some time.

But, i want to ask you something if you do not mind as perhaps it would help us to understand each other better.

What is a photon?
Do you think that it is massless as modern physics says? Or not? And why?
Do you think that nothing can travel faster than the light and why?
What do you think of Higgs-Boson?
And, which is smaller between these two (HB and a Photon) and why?

Do not go in the maths as i am concerned about the concepts only.

with love,
sanjay

The word “light” gets a bit confused. Fundamentally, “radiant energy” is a better term.

A photon is a pulse of radiant energy, or “affectance”. When the pulse is higher frequency (ramp rate), it will tend to hold together and not dissipate. The higher that ramp rate, the greater is the tendency to particlize. The photon doesn’t ever become a typical mass particle only because it is already moving too fast to accumulate the spherical affectance required to become a mass particle. In effect, it is out running its potential future as a particle.

And as that ramp rate increases, the pulse displays greater similarity to a fast moving particle. As a particle, the ramp rate increases to infinity and thus is easily measured to have inertia and momentum, and can no longer propagate at “light speeds”. The speed of light is determined by the affect of attempting to change the situation (the “potential”, PtA) at an infinite rate and also travel at infinity speed. It can’t do both thus infinite propagation speed is sacrificed and a ramp rate below infinite is required. If the ramp rate were to exceed the limit produced by the infinite rate of affect (per infinitesimal point), the propagation speed would be sacrificed to even below light. The explanation for exactly why light travels at that particular speed is a bit of a long story and involves the math of infinities (or “hyperreal mathematics”), but it is entirely logic based, requiring no ontological presumptions.

A common misunderstanding is that a light photon is a pure wave. It is certainly not. It is basically a clump of EM/Affectance noise that has a trajectory and an average pulse ramp rate. Within that little bundle are spikes and peaks. Those peaks give the photon its ability to “hold together” more like a particle. But also, despite what has been commonly taught in physics, every photon has inertia and momentum (thus “mass”). In physics, they decided to distinguish between types of mass by calling one “momentum” and the other “rest mass”. Light can have no rest mass simply because it doesn’t rest. If it did, it would become a particle or a portion of an existing particle.

And each of those little spikes is made of an infinite number of these;

The “Afflate” is merely a conceptual entity similar to an ultra microscopic “clump of affectance” and in physics is referred to as a “virtual entity” (not physically discreet, just a chosen amount).

Photons have no particular size. Their average inner ramp rate determines what physical size will be established. And that ramp rate is dependent upon the ambient that the photon is flowing through and thus in a dense ambient, the size and the propagation speed reduce. That is why light bends around highly massive objects and distorts when going through mass objects such as glass.

What they are calling a Higgs Boson is merely a theorized particle presumed to exist based on the notion that “everything must have an equal and opposite”. The theory is not correct. The Higgs boson is proposed to be what “carries the gravitational force”. As you know, gravitation is no mystery force to RM:AO and it needs no “carrier”. The quantum physics ontology requires that the entire universe be formed of quantized symmetrical objects and the universe itself is a foam of Plank bubbles that magically come and go when needed.

The “Standard Model” in contemporary physics is another ontology presuming too many things for me. RM:AO needs no such presumptions and in fact, explains every one of their presumed “fundamental components” of the physical universe.

As just explained (again) to Eugene, RM:AO explains why things like these exist at all;

Any ontology concerning physics needs to have a good explanation for those things, not merely presume their necessary presence. But interestingly, every one of those has psychological, sociological, and economic analogies. By explaining the simplest form, the physics, the other fields immediately acquire an ontology suited for them as well.

How would VO or ZO explain that list of things without merely presuming their existence? RM:AO doesn’t presume any of them to be existing so as to show how it is, or “why”, they must always exist. The concept of “consciousness” involves sub-components such as memory, separation between the awareness and what it is aware of, speed of interaction (“speed of thought”), resultant effects (“will”), and algorithmic processes. Each of those sub-components requires an explanation concerning it individually.

Classical physics was closer to being a truly complete ontology than quantum physics but merely couldn’t figure out why quantumizing took place.

RM:AO is the Pontiff between Classical physics and Quantum physics.

Sorry James,

Out of station since two days.

With love,
sanjay

That’s okay, Sanjay. Don’t make potential stress promises. Just do what you can when you can. No pressure.

On the matter of relations, and how that concept divides RM from VO without either of the two invalidating the other.

The key is in the difference between the ultimate consequences of on the one hand the subjective concept of value and on the other the objective concept of affect.

Like an atomic core and an electron ring, the truth itself is not thinkable without a dual measurement. One can only “feel” the truth as one now and then, but this involves the whole being rather than only a rational conclusion.

As above, so below: As with concepts, so with objects.

Relations are a priori dual, triple, => , not merely after the fact of measuring them. The relations we measure in physics and chemistry do not only exist in terms of force.
There is also another aspect, and this is unmeasurable in exact terms, as it involves not just the present state but its entire history and future of affect in every possible universe in which it could exist.

Even the very idea of a particle is cleaved. There are always two ways of contemplating the object. For example:

• The minimal and maximal requirements for its existence, its ‘essence’, raw (unmeasured) content. ⇔ Its maximal power to affect (a quantity of force).

• The possible ways in which it can affect and be affected (a number of qualities in various quantities). ⇔ Its measurable effect. (its measurable activity at a given moment).

These cross relate into two four further dualities, of which two are simple and two quite a bit less so. More on these later. In the above, the second part of each pair is expressed in terms of something outside of itself. The first part expresses all that it can possibly be, i.e. all possible contexts for it to exist in. The second is a process of valuing and counter valuing, the second part is translatable in common sensical speak only via such words as (value-) standard and consistency.

In the case of the latter it is very difficult to distinguish action from passive existing. Something “just exists” only to the measure that it is active. Even if this activity may be wholly enforced by the ambient history, it does act itself in a particular way that can only be affected by the ambient indirectly. Thus it is an integer being, essentially independent, yet requiring for this independence something to be independent from.

And such arrays of standards arrange themselves alongside those standards to which they may favorably compare. I.e. each thing seeks (gradually falls into) the context in which the most is required of its essential potential.

In human lore this is called Good versus Evil, but it is the inevitable form of time, the progression of increasing density on the one hand, and slowing relative time on the other.

The end scenario is one of complete stability and zero progression of time. Time would then ‘freeze’, undoubtably for it to burst open in a new Big Bang (or Crash - as in a pulverizing sheet of glass).

I think You are on the right track, and your expressing a pre existing duality although a contradiction of terms, it implies a sort of collapsed state of that duality into the unitary. The unitary
Is what becomes Kant’s synthetic a priori, by definition. But the duplicity is somehow inherent or embedded in the unity.

In other words, consciousness is embedded in the consciousness for(the perceived object.

This later is defined as the in itself and the for itself , respectively.

I suspect that VO is referring to the value of a banana while I am referring to the subatomic physics of the molecules within that same banana.

But let’s start “at the beginning”.

Let’s say that there is point that has the potential to affect another point merely in the way of altering the other’s ability to affect anything else. Point A has to ability to cause point B to have more affect on perhaps point C.

Without anything else involved, how fast would that affect from A to B occur?

Void of anything to slow it down, it would have to occur infinitely fast. But interestingly, not instantaneously. Any changing that A imposes on B must occur in a series of changes from a lower level to a higher level. There is always an in between. There are, in effect, an infinite number of changes occurring in order to alter point B from any level to any other level.

But point B cannot be both at a low level and a high level at the exact same moment as the notion of “instantaneous” would suggest. It is of logical necessity that the entire series from low to high occur in sequence and thus there must be a time when point B is not yet as high as it is going to become.

So let’s say that A does go ahead and raise point B’s potential up to a higher level, give it a value of “10”. And that it got to that level by going through levels 1 through 10 progressively at an infinite speed. Now we have point B with a potential value of 10, but not at the exact same moment as when it was at level 1, or 2, or 3.

Point B can now affect a point C in a similar manner. And again, point C must progress from it’s lower value up to its higher value and since point B was given the ability to change point C up to the level 10, shortly after B got up to 10, C would get up to 10.

Between any two points in space, there are conceptually an infinite number of such points and any propagation of affect must traverse each of the infinite number of points in sequence. So we have a case where a small change is occurring at an infinite speed but must make that same change an infinite number of times. The end result calculates to be merely “a constant” of unknown value, but certainly not infinite.

So what we have is the unavoidable logic that states any affect cannot ever propagate at an infinite (certainly not instantaneous) rate. And that must be true regardless of there not being anything at all slowing it down… no “resistance” other than logic itself. This is known as “the speed of light” (even though that isn’t really the best terminology for it).

Now, in terms of VO, what is the valuer and the value? And how does the propagation play into the ontology?

This is one of many reasons why I have no respect for RM.

FC, I have another question for VO.

I do not expect you to reply straight away, nor would I want you to reply without the utmost sincerity and prior thought:

does reality precede value?

To make it easier for us to communicate, I’d ask you to define “reality”.

That’s what I’ve tried to do with VO.

The conclusion is that standard/value (as I’ve called self-valuing) logically precedes value - i.e. it comes first in the argument.

VO is a logical method of defining reality and its build-up, its process of evolution.

Reality is “what is real”. “Real” is a subjective value-judgment, be it a very fundamental one.

What is required for such a judgement? That there is something that “engages reality” - i.e. a resistance.

This is where VO goes ‘deeper’ than RM - RM states bits of Potential to Affect - VO defines those bits in terms that translate in their potential.

Within the VO logic (and it is just a logical method to describe reality, not reality itself nor the only way of describing it), for reality to precede value would mean that reality precedes itself.

Another question for you, S -
Does the term ‘reality’ refer to an objective or a subjective judgment?

Can we speak of reality without referring to subjective terms?
If so, how?

…and getting more convinced.

Well, value ontology refers to both the banana and the subatomic particles. And the atomic particles. And the guy who eats the banana. And the stomach-function of the banana.
Does RM refer only to the subatomic particle?

All are valuer and valued. Their existence is a conflict between being valued and valuing. Trillions of slight differences and gazillions of permutations per moment, we are at war with ourselves, and RM is like a nuclear weapon. VO is like a life-boat.

“And the stomach-function of the banana.”

I mean -

Take the word “human” as figuratively as you possibly can. Take some drugs if you nee to, but get there.

VO refers to man and from man to the molecule. From the molecule to the atom. From the atom the currents of affect (I adopted affectance from RM) and within the currents of affect it recognizes the human. A shared property is met.

RM refers from the “human” at absolute near zero level, the ‘infinitesimal bit of PtA’.
VO recognizes this bit as equal to a human in the essential property of not being nothing - i.e. immediately transient: resistance.

Resistance is the most complicated factor in the calculation, as it is purely conditional, contingent and circumstantial. No? Thus it merits to set out a perimeter for predictions and power-moves, a sphere wherein one can be certain that calculations will be correct.

in VO, this perimeter is huge. That is because the terms are general. But amazingly, they are clear. VO does require all of the other sciences. Its terminology is not separate from mathematics or social-dramatic performance management, english french or sign-language. It’s also not a claim on the world. It’s the science of claims on the world.

The whole of our social affect is the heat of resistance and movement, so conditioned that it is terrible, no knowledge is available except the punishing data of crude collisions. Science works this way. The unfortunate aspect of science is that it leaves us indifferent to subjective truth (such as superstitions, magical family ancestry, people with superpowers, ghosts and spirits, personal energies ), But that means it also leaves little room for remorse, for projecting inward of responsibility, for self-study. Scientific selfstudy works in types, the body is analyzed in terms of a magnified square, so to speak. It is not ‘made’ to do good to the one who wields it. It is meant to do it but that is the problem. It does not “emerge”.

In RM atoms emerge out of a code, which is built on a standard.
VO is that standards study. It is in effect deeper than RM, thus wider in terms of predictions but not nearly as exact in its electronic power.

So in affect i say: fine - let them have their science. I am not going to be watching over a nuclear arsenal. Let some maniacs do that, they can be relied on to always make the same manic decisions. No sane person is that predictable.

They’re like supertoxic particles who keep the supertoxic weapons from the normal guys.

Just fund them less.

Does it to you?

So it sounds like you are relating the “affecter and affected” with the “valuer and valued”;
“Affectance” and “Valuance”.

By what means does the valuer acquire a standard for valuing?

No.
This is why I was interested to see if FC was deterred by the logical conclusion of such a position - that value isn’t real.

Precisely.

RM is clearly a culmination of things that JSS considers to be most valuable. Yet he still tries to irrationally proclaim that RM precedes such an origin (that must necessarily be its origin).

This is the same sloppiness upon which scientists attempt to found their field. Not that RM is anything other than an attempt to adjust science through re-definition.

My philosophy originates more fundamentally than both VO and RM, in pre-meaningful experience. Value is merely one aspect of this starting point.

RM:AO explains the logic behind why there is any universe at all, thus why there is any affecter, valuer, or consciousness.

What is VO’s explanation?