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).