Universe and Time

It depends on the philosophy, especially the metaphysics and its ontology, or the theory whether wiilingness differs live-matter from non-live matter or not. For example: according to Schopenhauer the will is Kant’s “Ding an sich” (“thing as such”, “thing in itself”).

Can you give an example of “live-matter” (also known a “orgonite”).

According to my theory, most of the “laws” of physics should not be called into question, thus some of the “laws” of physics should be called into question,

???

Your “theory” is what?
And how can one know it is an actual law, if never called into question?

!!!

Tor! - Goal!

I am watching football (soccer) at the moment (Spain vs. Chile). Are you also interested in that, James?

Back to your questions:

For example: most of the “laws” of the quantum physics had been called into question before it became apparent that much of quantum physics can not be wrong because a dental drill and a cd player really work.

The f ourfundamental forces of nature should not be generally called into question, but some of the"laws" of thermodynamics, or the theory of the “big bang” and the theory of the “inflation of the universe” shoulld be called into question because there is no absolute proof or evidence, but merely laboratory experiments, statistics, modeling, and - of course - claims for them.


Affectance and spiral-cyclicity are convertible and not contradictory.

Bodies “notice” without any awareness that they are affected.

You can call into question their ontology laws. Are they local in time and space? ARe they more like temporary habits?
In fact we know that some laws are not universal through time. A good number of constants and laws are being called into question in a similar way. The idea of laws has been a valuable heuristic and given the time span we have experienced - though it seems some changes have happened even in homo sapians lifetimes - and how limited we are locally in space. But it is a heuristic or metaphor if you will. And it seems to suffer some of the problems of analogies.

I don’t go into details of my theory, because it would require a lot of space, but some aspects of the current physical theories, especially of the cosmological theories, have to be called into question, because they seem to contradict spiral-cyclicity.

So the time arrow can also be called into question, because we really don’t know much about our universe (and perhaps other universes), the black holes, the so called “dark matter”, the so so called “dark energy”, the “big bang”, the “inflation of our universe”, and the fact whether the universe is really closed or not, which leads to another problem: the entropy of our universe, including the specific direction of its time arrow.

I’m afraid that I lost interest in public sports in the early 1980’s.

That seems certainly reasonable.

I would be interested in how the cyclic motion relates to evolution and history.

Quantum Mechanics is strictly about statistical data, having no theorizing involved. Quantum Physics is an imaginative effort to bring solipsism and magic into science. QP is a conflation of the description of reality with reality itself, the conflation of the map with the terrain. I have yet to find anything of QP to be valid. QP is the notion, not of “mind over matter”, but rather “mind IS matter”. In QP, the equation itself is the physical reality and causative force, not merely a description of it. CD players and dentist drills work for entirely different reasons.

I have discovered that the Standard Model in contemporary physics is not an entirely accurate ontology. In RM:AO, there are no actual “forces”. What appears to be forces in physics is actually merely dynamic migration. And the “strong” and “weak” forces don’t actually exist at all. They are merely aberrant effects (Charged Particle Behavior).

Yes, of course.

The theory is based on analogies. For example: Sun and technique (technology), planets and cultures, moons and economies, other bodies and art. The pre-condition I made is that the problem of the “dualism” between nature and culture can be overcome by analogies. In addition to the great “dualism” between nature and culture there are three other “dualisms”; so actually there are four “dualisms”, thus one “quadrialism” - four regions, and each region has two subregions; so I’ve got eight subregions (little “worlds”), and this eight “worlds” are: (1) physical, (2) chemical, (3) biological, (4) economical, (5) semiotical (incl. psycholgical/sociological), (6) linguistical, (7) philosophical, (8) mathematical. We can combine them: I (1 and 2), II (3 and 4), III (5 and 6), IV (7 and 8 ); or: A (1,2,3,4 or 1,2,3,8) and B (5,6,7,8 or 4,5,6,7). But the principal point is te analogy by itself, just in principle. It is very much stuff! So it is very much text too!

Which “entirely different reasons” do you mean?

If “the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ forces don’t actually exist at all”, as you are saying, why do you then mention them in your “affectance ontology”?

Well, I understand the issue of analogies, but I still don’t see the relation to cyclical-spirals. What for example is spiraling and toward what focus point concerning psychology?

Neither QM nor QP are involved in the reasons for things happening. Classical physics describes the reasons (the causes) in terms of electromagnetic radiation. RM:AO describes such causes in terms of relative affectance.

In the case of a CD player, EMR or Affectance triggers a threshold where it is engineered to record either a hit or miss, a one or zero and thus digitizing the recording for storage and transport. Often, in order to sell the idea of “quantum”, anything digital and sophisticated is called “quantum”. QM mathematics, or “statistics”, are often used to calculate error rates or to adjust probable outcomes, but it is really merely statics being used to choose a threshold. QP, as far as I can tell (after considerable purview), doesn’t have anything to do with anything other than selling a religion to a naive population.

I mention them because I am translating Affectance Ontology into the more familiar physics terminology. In contemporary physics, one speaks of “forces” that push or pull. In reality, and in RM:AO, there are no such “forces”. What is seen and experienced as a force, is actually the end effect, or aberrant effect, of subtle migration of the affectance density. The migration is not due to pushing or pulling, but due to greater accumulation in one direction over another and thus a particle (for example) shifts the center of its noise, it migrates. But in doing so, it gains momentum and continues to shift in that same direction. If it runs across another particle, the affectance is exchanged such as to give the impression that one particle pushed another. In reality, they merely exchanged directed-affectance (commonly referred to as “energy in a particular direction” or “momentum exchange”) and began a new direction of their migration.

Even the most common understanding of positive and negative electric attraction and repulsion, isn’t actually the reality. There have never been any actual electric “forces” as such. But particles still behave just as if there was. RM:AO is merely correcting a misunderstanding in the ontology of physics. Physics is formed with the ontology of forces and particles. RM:AO is formed from the ontology of Affectance density and its migration. RM:AO explains incontrovertibly WHY the things called “forces” in physics appear and do what they do. So I have to talk about those “forces” so that it can be seen as to what I am talking about. Once an understanding of RM:AO is achieved, there is no more talk of forces.

And perhaps interestingly, the very strongest “force” in nature is what they call the “weak force”. And the very weakest, they call the “strong force”, both because they had no idea of what is really happening and thus named them based on impressions. Scientists generally make poor oncologists (although a few were pretty sharp at it).

Please look at the following pictures again:

Now please imagine, there is not a spiralic, but merely a cyclic “way”. What do you see and think then? I guess you see and think that there is an action replay, an iteration, a recurrence, a reapeat, a repetition, a rerun … and so on. That’s the relation to the cyclicity - in any case (for example: physical, chemical, biological, economical, semiotical [incl. pscholgical/sociological], lingustical, philosophical, mathematical]). And now please imagine, there is not merely a cyclic, but also a spiralic “way” - then, of course, the cyclic “way” becomes a more relativised cyclic “way”, but that doesn’t matter, because it is just an impression. I think that devolopment (incl. evolution and history [=> #, => #) is certainly a spiral-cyclic “way” which merely perhaps follows the time arrow - the former and not the latter is important for my theory.

[size=90]The “house of development”:[/size]

_______________________| History |
______________| Evolution ____|
________| Development ______|

[size=90]History is merely the “roof” of the “house of development”.[/size]

[size=90]Time and the “house of development”:[/size]

_______________________| History |
______________| Evolution ____|
________| Development ______|

________________________ Time ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You probably know the meaning of “hyperonym” (“superordination”) and “hyponym” (“subordination”). My interpetation of „time“, „development“ („change“), „evolution“, and „history“ in their structural relations to each other is the following one:

  1. „time“ is the hyperonym of the hyponyms „development“ („change“), „evolution“, and „history“;
    1,1) „development“ („change“) is a hyponym of the hyperonym „time“ and the hyperonym of the hyponyms „evolution“ and „history“;
    [list]1,1,1) „evolution“ is a hyponym of the hyperonyms „time“ and „development“ and the hyperonym of the hyponym „history“;
    [list] 1,1,1,1) „history“ is merely a hyponym, namely of the hyperonyms „time“, „development“, and „evolution“.[/list:u][/list:u]
    That consequently means: if history ends (=> #), evolution, or development (change), or even the time do not have to end simultaneously; and if evolution ends, history ends simultaneously, but development (change) and time do not have to end simultaneously; and if development (change) ends, evolution and history end simultaneously, but time does not have to end simultaneously. So in that relation merely the time is independent. Development (change) depends only on time. Evolution depends on time and development (change). History is the most dependent, because it depends on time, development (change), and evolution.

You may compare (1) time with our universe as such, (1,1) development (change) with our planet, (1,1,1) evolution with a living being (for example an alga, or a snake, or a human being without history, and (1,1,1,1) history with a - of course - historical human being.

They all belong to 1 (time), and merely historical human beings belong to 1,1,1,1 (history).

The history of cultures (civilisations) is also a spiral-cyclic move - psychologically (I prefer the word semiotically) cognizable, because cultures have something like a soul or psyche ans their own original symbolics.

I am thinking that you are talking about, for example, the rising and falling of a civilization type, perhaps Roman in nature. In such a case, I can see the two dimensions of time and the rise and fall of the civilization type, but that would be merely a two dimensional wave. For there to be a spiral, three dimensions are required. What would the third dimension be?

You call it “wave”, and that’s not wrong, but not exactly worded. Exactly worded it is – of course – a spiral-cyclic move (which may be also called “wave”). The third dimension is – for example – a kind of technique (technology) or the human evolution (eventually human history, but I doubt that a real human history - in general - exists, because I believe that, referring to all humans, merely cultural history of humans exists). The most interesting point (especially for you, James) is, that the medium, which “communicates” with the cultural “actors” could be “affectance” or a kind of an ”aether“

Planets, moons, and other bodies of a solar system can merely then exist, if a star has “created” them. And so it is for cultures, economies, and art (artefacts) as well: cultures, economies, and arts (artefacts) can merely exist, if a technique (technology) has “created” them. Such a technique can also be a cultural technique, if any culture already exists. Important is that there must be three dimensions when it comes to “start” such a culture (unfortunately the English language requires the word “civilisation”) as described. If there are merely two dimensions, then there are merely techniques as the “primitive” cultures possible, and they are very important as the third dimension for “higher” cultures.

The spiral motion of suns and techniques are quite powerful and quite generous. In their systems, they are even absolutely powerful and absolutely generous; because like every sun in its system any technique in its system is the absolute tyrant and the absolute sponsor.

It is very likely that it is a superior technique of all of nature or what we call the universe, which is identical with what we call creation. Whether we call the creator God, the “unmoved mover”, the “big bang-maker”, the “universe builder”, the “string musician” or simply the “original technician”, that is perhaps more a matter of faith, religious sensitivities and the theological justifications than one of the exact knowledge; but at the beginning everything needs an impulse, a help from - despite the later self-help. I believe that there are several other characteristics, namely different spiral cycles-setting techniques in addition to the initial technique, to some extent as descendants of the early technology, the original technique.

So also a culture needs energy, force to ever come into motion and thus development, or point(s), bodies, “parents” of culture (s) as the start or forerun or circuit object, an object of its spiral cycle.

As we move spirally through the universe, we turn simultaneously to ourselves.

Why not?
The most obvious and easy to explore are humans.

with love,
sanjay

I meant the “the smallest particle involved of life”, not the larger body that we all recognize.

James,

That is one aspect of which i am not sure yet.

As far as humans are concerned, they have a certain style or size of consciousnss. This is not my assumption but i am sure (rather know) about it. But, i cannot say the same about the life in micro forms of life with so confidently.

Having said that, my guess is that there must be a certain level of size of the consciousness, that must be there to interact with manifestations of will (matter) to form a life. And, that minimal sized consciousness particle cannot be devided further. This cannot even either grow big in size by joining with other consciousness particle.

Hinduism also supports this theory. All sects of Hinduism (including Buddhism) say that are 8.4 millon life forms (including plants) and consciousness has to go all those after taking birth each time as a human form ( but only if it does not elevate its spiritual status during human life).

Thus, it remains in the labyrinth. That is why human life is considered so precious and not to be wasted merely in living unpurposely. Moving out from this cycle for ever is Nirvana/enlightenment.

with love,
sanjay

And that is what I have been calling “Anentropic Harmony”.

So for you “Anentropic Harmony” is “Nirvana”?

No… but yes… but no.

Anentropic Harmony is the ultimate stage from which no one departs to become something different. In Buddhism and Hinduism, Nirvana is what they call the “ultimate stage”. But their image of that ultimate stage is one of extreme peace with very little motion or activity. But in reality, peace is not an ultimate stage, merely the beginning of it, the “clearing of the field for the ultimate form to be built”. Anentropic Harmony is a momentous harmony that occupies the prior stage of pure peace and thus becomes stable and eternal. Without the momentum, peace is not stable.

I don’t think Hinduism and Buddhism have a word for Anentropic Harmony. The closest thing is their their word for ultimate eternal heaven. “Anentropic Harmony” describes the make of the ultimate heaven. “Nirvana” is misunderstood to be ultimate heaven (but lacks the required momentum) and is said to be that ultimate stage.

So yes… but no… but yes.

Being dead sounds like a close second but without the momentum.