AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

Well its in the OP!
I can rephrase it as a question:
How does an infinitesimal affect the next one?
But the challenge assumes that this question is presumed irrelevant, as it is only the “that it happens” that matters for AO, not the “how/why it happens”.
Which is the concern for VO.
VO asks: what criteria are there for affecting?

Just playing around.
The ego is itself a trap. I have had to shed my ego entirely in order to illuminate people, because most people who receive intellectual gifts feel they need to reach deep into their assholes, grab hold of as much shit as they can, and throw it at the virtuous bestower. So I have no more “little self” as N calls it, just a “greater self” - my body.

This reduces my reaction, to the shit-tossing-economy which exists below the intellectual economy, to laughter. Hence the pictures. I can’t help being amused.

I answered in detail “how it happens”. Apparently you wanted to ask “Why it happens”. That is a different question.

And the answer to that question is the answer to “why is there existence?” (because affecting and existing are the same thing).

There is existence/affecting because it is logically and mathematically impossible for there to not be. And that reasoning is based upon the possibility of absolute homogeneity. Having mathematically proved that absolute homogeneity is impossible, we are left with the unavoidable fact that there are variations in potential-to-affect. All it takes is the slightest variation in PtA and the universe is off and running.

Did you want to see the math again (and again, and…)?

But such a logic proof or reasoning is actually irrelevant anyway. AO is first a “constructed ontology”, an artifact of the mind. It is secondly a “proposed theory” to suggest that the constructed ontology is empirically true to reality. The proof that AO is true to reality comes through its total rational consistency and also its complete alignment with current scientific observations (as well as being able to answer a few science mysteries). The empirical evidence puts the cap on the proof. The logic demanded that AO be true to reality anyway, but empirical verification is always appreciated.

Okay, so now your turn, what is your answer to the same question, “WHY is there valuing?” (or “what criteria are there” for valuing?).

Here’s an interesting question: what does it mean for there to not be existence? What is non-existence? If you’re going to say that there is no such a thing as non-existence, you must already know what non-existence is. So what is non-existence? You guys are using these terms all over the place. Surely, you must know what these terms mean?

What most people mean when they say non-existence is a point in time in which a theory (or a model of reality) predicts (or rather determines, generates or causes) no event. That would be general non-existence. There is also specific non-existence. An example would be when someone says there is no tree at some point in space at some point in time. It’s specific because there might be something at that point in space at that point in time it’s just that it is not a tree. In other words, specific non-existence claims that a specific thing is not to be found at certain point in space at certain point in time. Unlike general non-existence, it does not claim that no thing is to be found at certain point in spacetime.

Of course, these people are not speaking of ANY theory. Nor are they speaking of a theory someone holds to be true. They are speaking of a theory that describes exactly how the universe works. They BELIEVE that there is such a theory. That’s their core assumption. Even though “how the universe works” is a meaningless phrase.

The assumption that some theory describes exactly how the universe works cannot be verified, it can only falsified. Which means it is not a proper assumption. Proper assumptions can be both verified and falsified. An example would be an assumption that there is a tree at some place at some point in time. You can test that assumption by looking at that place at that point in time. The tree is either there or it is not. The assumption is proven correct or it is proven incorrect.

There is simply no way to test the assumption that there is a theory that describes exactly the way the universe works. This means that there is no way to test whether any given theory is the one that describes exactly the way the universe works. Which means that there is no way to prove – mathematically, logically or empirically – that non-existence is not a feature of such a theory.

So all this talk about how non-existence is logically or mathematically impossible is nothing more than intellectual masturbation.

Magnus

Allow me to take a stab at a few points you have made - please don’t take what I have to say too seriously, I just want to break things up a little.

I would say that it means nothing for there not to be existence. Non-existence is nothing. I think non-existence means nothing. :smiley:

I would say that there is never a non-existent state at some point in space at some point in time - just an non-configured state at some point in space at some point in time. The existence if treated as a substance is always there but in a different state - the tree always exists but not as a tree. All of the particles that make up the tree are in different states at different points in space and time, and at the points in space and time that the tree exists the particles are configured to a tree state - this obviously always changes so change is also never in a non-existent state.

My humorous attempt is dependent of course by what I mean by state - so definitions become useful at these points in space and time.

If time is a linear dimension then we would have to say that there can only ever be one point in time.

Have you ever considered time to be multidimensional?

How the universe doesn’t work is perhaps a more meaningless phrase.

So you are essentially saying that we can only verify things on a smaller scale because the universe is too large to verify.

There is no way to prove nothing - you can only prove something. If there is nothing there to prove >> then nothing can be proved. If there is something there to prove then something can be proved. I hope I am making some sort of sense here.

Intellectual masturbation - I will have to remember that.

:laughing:

Don’t mind me, I am just having some . . . well I am not sure what I was trying to achieve.

Perhaps I too was just intellectually masturbating, even though that is not what I was trying to achieve.

But in everyday life we often say things such as “there is no this or there is no that” or “this or that does not exist”. Do you agree? For example, there are no clowns in my backyard. Are there clowns in your backyard? Do they exist over there? Similarly, I can say that “there are no zombies” or “zombies do not exist” to mean that “I cannot observe zombies anywhere within the environment that I live”. What this means is that the concept of non-existence is meaningful. It does have a meaning. The question is only what kind of meaning. And the answer is what I referred to as specific non-existence in my earlier post. Non-existence, in this sense, simply refers to an unmet expectation or to an expectation that you think will be unmet. You expect something to happen at some point in time and that something simply does not happen at that point in time. That’s non-existence of whatever you have expected to happen at that point in time.

But if you assume that the universe works according to a set of rules, which means that there is a theory that can represent this set of rules with perfect accuracy, and if you agree, which I am sure everyone will agree, that a theory can predict (or determine) what’s going to happen at some points in time and not predict (or determine) what’s going to happen at other points in time, then non-existence is possible. Non-existence, in this sense, simply refers to a point in time for which a theory predicts (or determines) no event. Does this make sense? A universal theory, in this sense, is a set of rules that God follows in order to decide the state of the universe at every point in time at every point in space. Existence refers to those points in time for which He makes a decision. The number of these may be finite or infinite. Non-existence refers to those points in time for which He makes no decision. The number of these too may be finite or infinite.

The universe isn’t “too large” to verify. You can verify assumptions regarding things of any size. Sure, it will take a lot of time for the larger ones, but it is still possible to verify them.
The problem is that the concept of universe is not well defined. It has no reference to any particular.

I think the difference between AO and VO is that AO explains the Universe in a scientific sense pertaining to objects and forces and VO explains it in a psychological
or philosophical sense pertaining to values. And so consequently I see them as separate from each other though not incompatible. VO is very human centric in a way
that AO is not. For AO would still hold true if human beings did not exist whereas VO would not as it is human beings who give value to ideas pertaining to existence
A life less Universe could not have value because there would be nothing to give it any. The other and definitely most fundamental difference between AO and VO is
that AO is an objective ontology whereas VO is a subjective one. For AO is based upon observation while VO is based upon interpretation. Values are objectively real
but what makes them subjective is the specific set of values a human being may adopt over other sets and also how different human beings will adopt different sets
These can be moral or political or religious or philosophical or any combination thereof. And so to sum up. AO and VO are two ontologies which I do not think should
invite comparison with each other simply because they deal with entirely different aspects of existence. Although each is true from their own particular perspective

That is a pretty good superficial analysis. But as you get deeper into AO there is the subject of PHT, “Perception of Hope and Threat”. PHT handles all human, animal, governing, and societal behaviors and issues, certainly including any registered values.

In RM:AO:Psychology, PHT is the psychological parallel of positive (hope) and negative (threat) affectance (aka “charge”). Throughout AO:Physics whenever positive or negative PtA levels or positive and negative charged particles are mentioned, there is an exact parallel pertaining to psychological, sociological, governing, and economical behaviors and issues. AO:PHT is RM:AO’s version of VO and virtually identical except that AO:PHT includes a great deal more precise details as to how, why, and how much. Human and animal values are assigned due to perceptions of hope and threat. I could go around saying that atoms “maintain their existence by perceiving hope and threat”, but … :-k :confused:

I would not compare positive and negative particles with positive and negative psychological states as they are entirely different things
Particles do not have consciousness and are not capable of emotion so are not the same as human beings. And trying to equate the two
makes this aspect of AO appear rather fuzzy. In science physics and biology and psychology are treated as separate domains. Therefore
having separate and distinct ones for AO would make it a better ontology. Since it would have more clarity and be easier to understand

Although it takes far more than merely the proposal in order to clearly see the analogy, it is certain that the principles governing PHT are an exact parallel to the principles that govern inanimate positive and negative effects (and “particles”).

An example of a psychological “particle” would be a traumatic impact that has left a specific phobia within the psyche of an individual. The make of the phobia in PHT terms is identical to the make of a physical subatomic particle, specifically a “traffic jam” of concerns centered around and spreading from a peak of concern (the threat-engrams left by the trauma). What is “affectance” in physical terms is also “affectance” in psychological terms (concurrent psychology) although most often applied to merely infants. RM:AO expands the use of the general concept of affectance.

I’m sure that we agree on that, hence:
RM
RM:AO/Physics
RM:AO/Psychology
RM:AO/Sociology
RM:AO/Economics
.
.
.

And actually, to be even more organized, one can realize that physics grows into mechanics and chemistry which grow into physiology and biology while psychology grows into mind and emotion which grow into strategy and sociology which grows into politics and economics.
RM:AO/Physics (PtA oriented)
_ Mechanics
_ Chemistry
___ Physiology
___ Biology

RM:AO/Psychology (PHT oriented)
_ Mind
_ Emotion
___ Strategy (Gaming, Sports, Combat,…)
___ Sociology
_____ Politics
_____ Economics

Other than funding and professorships, RM:AO is an entire university.

Magnus

I can not argue against what you are saying when you say that in everyday life we are often referring to “things” that do not exist. I would say however that when we are referring to things not existing in everyday life that we can be specific about that but only because we have a reference of things existing - to say that clowns are not in your backyard is still to invent clowns, just that their existence is confined to your statement, and your statement is confined to a thought, which in turn is confined to both the brain and mind, which exist. So even when we say things do not exist, we have just given the things we talk about existence, no matter how temporary by stating it - that “things” do not exist. We are also saying clowns relative to the backyard - a story for another day.

Real non-existence is nothing - because it has not been referenced.

I do understand what you are saying and I am going to veer off track a little and this is not the only time that I have used the following as an example to illustrate something but I will say that each time has been enjoyable. An answer must exist before a question - why? Because, how can you find something that does not exist? This means that what you are saying is also true because if an answer expresses a non-existent outcome then the answer has brought into reality a non-existent outcome except now the outcome does exist because it has been stated - the answer was there to be found.

You are making sense in what you are saying - I hope I am making sense too.

I can only assume that the universe does operate according to a set of relatively basic laws - I would say the laws are a lot more basic than the totality of the outcome of the universe. With the universe in constant change this outcome must have changed countless times in the past. I would also say that in nearly every theory we humans have managed to invent there is a missing law and to me that is the missing law of the missing - this I believe is an artifact of our own logic working against us - but to work without it, is to always come up short, with every theory and indeed every law, no matter how correct a theory and/or law seems.

You are correct - somehow though I sense that our logic is still working against us

True. But when we speak of non-existence we speak of non-existence at certain point in space at certain point in time. There is no doubt that at the time when we speak of clowns in a backyard there is at the very least mental existence.

There is no way to inductively infer general non-existence from any kind of evidence. This is due to the manner induction works. Recall that “general non-existence” refers to a point in time for which a theory predicts no event. It might be a bit more specific than that and refer to a point in spacetime for which a theory predicts no-thing. It does not matter. What creates the problem is that induction is about assigning probability values to possibilities of any kind. It places no restriction on what kind of possibilities we can assign a probability value. It can be any kind of possibility so as long it is a proper possibility i.e. it refers to something that can be experienced. If a possibility does not refer to something that can be experienced then its probability cannot be determined and is therefore meaningless.

For example, you can ask “what is the probability that the Earth will be hit by an asteriod within next ten years?” This question refers to a proper possibility because the Earth being hit by an asteriod within next ten years is something that we can experience. And it does not have to be “within next ten years”. It can be “within next any number of years”. Whatever number you choose, the possibility will still be proper. Also, it does not have to refer to a point in the future. It can also refer to a point in the past. Even though we cannot travel back in time, and thus test the possibility through direct observation, we can still determine its probability using induction and whatever evidence we have.

What all of this means is that a theory can make any kind of predictions that are of interest to us regardless of what evidence we possess. If we want to know what’s going to happen in the next centillion years then induction will allow us to do that regardless of what kind of evidence we possess. Thus, if a theory DOES NOT predict an event at some point in time, it’s merely because whoever devised it had no interest in predicting it.

People who ask questions such as “does the universe have a beginning and an end?” meaning “does the theory that represents with perfect accuracy the manner in which the universe works predicts a finite or an infinite number of events in time?” these people are oblivious to this fact. Which is why they keep asking such meaningless questions.

Still waiting.

You don’t mean to say that you cast a challenge to me that you couldn’t answer to yourself? :confused:

Ahaha.

Shut the hell up, false one. You only amuse yourself, except that you aren’t even doing that anymore. Death only breeds maggots.

Let’s contrast your deathmaggotry with something else;

So as his fanatical representative, you are offering an answer?

Nothing to say?

Obviously the nihilstic VO doesn’t have more to offer than a handful of megalomaniac solipsists with occasional tantrums.

Kek

No, thats actually the question I asked about RM, remember?
It doesn’t work with respect to VO. VO is, as Ive explained a few hundred times since 2011, and which dozens of quicker minds already picked up on, the resolution of the question “why”.

People with the courage to know their own valuing are permitted use of VO. Others, evidently should be very wary.

And I answered that question with great detail, many years ago and again on this thread, remember?

Yes. That seems to be the case. VO is without explanation, despite:

Your statement that it is of concern for VO.
Yet you have no answer for it??

Oh, I see. It is “the resolution to why”. I take that to mean that “it just is”, as you accused of RM:AO. You presume it to need no explanation?

If you meant something else, please explain.

Try to leave your ego and threats out of it. As you said, “if we stick to logic, we can get along”.