Universe and Time

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.

“Why can’t you kill Buddha?”

…because he is already dead.

I wonder if he knows that or not compared to the rest of us poor pathetic mortals who know nothing after that.

James, you are saying that „existence is that which has affect“, and that in „reality, people are already using the word »exist« to mean this definition. They often never think about it, but in every case, the person really means that something having existence means that it has the potential to affect something; be seen, touched, smelled, or detected in some way even if not already detected.“. But one can doubt that „the person really means that something having existence means that it has the potential to affect something; be seen, touched, smelled, or detected in some way even if not already detected“, as you probably know. We just have to know more about the term „having affect“.

I have yet to find anyone who can name anything they believe to exist and yet also believe to have absolutely no affect on anything. At times, they get concerned with the issue of something not having affect on them personally, which is not the issue.

Can you think of anything that you believe to exist and yet also believe has absolutely no affect upon anything?

In RM:AO, it is merely a declared definition for what it means to physically exist, within the ontology. But in reality, I haven’t found anything that didn’t fit that definition anyway. But if someone wants to declare the existence of something that also has no affect upon anything, they are free to do so. They just can’t declare it in RM:AO.

Yes, I can think in that way. The “potential to affect something” and the fact to “be seen, touched, smelled, or detected in some way even if not already detected” are perhaps not the same thing or, if they are the same thing, perceived differently because there are - for example - different observers, and there is the problem of the subject/object dualism.

By declared definition, Existence is that which has affect.” You are saying that existence is that which has affect. But do all people really use the words “exist” and “existence” as you use them? And if so, what or who ist the one which or who affects what or whom? What or who is the first one? Does an “affectless affect” exist? Is this so called “affectless affect” similar to the so called “unmoved mover”?

Different cultures/civilisations interpret or even construe the reality in a different way than other cultures/civilisations.

Does nothingness or nonentity have any affect? What about the “nirvana”? What do you think about the “nirvana”? And probably in contrast: what does Zinnat think about the “nirvana”? What do you think about Zinnat’s thinking about the “nirvana”? … And so on …

Arminius, I’m trying to understand you

Could you give one example for that?

If I understand you right, you mean the following: When people say that something exists, they mean, that they have the active part by perceiving that what exists with their senses. After James’ ontology, waves of affectance come from the objects to affect them (the people), so that they can perceive the objects (that what exists). In that case the ‘active part’ comes- first- from the objects. Is that right?
If yes, why is it relevant for you who or what affects first who or what?
Or, in other words, does s.th. exist because I see it or because it can be seen by me?
I think in commom usage of the word ‘exist’ people don’t really see a difference in that.

Many people don’t think very much, but if (if!) they really think that something exists, they do it in two different ways: (1) subjectively, so they think existence has merely to do with the thinking subject, and (2) objectively, so they think existence is something which has nothing to do with the thinking subject. Merely the second way is also the way to think that “waves of affectance come from the objects to affect”. If they think “they can perceive the objects”, they actually have to ask themselves, whether that objects “exist” without any subject or because of the “existence” of the perceiving subject, so that objects don’t “exist”. I am speaking about the subject/object dualism. Is subjectivity or objectivity that what we call “reality” or is it both, so that there is no solution for the subject/object dualism?

Still I would like to have an example for s.th. what you believe that exists but doesn’t affect you or anything at all. I can not think this way.