AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

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”.

As long as you believe it yourself, and can sleep tight.

Love ya man.
Take care.

So I will be leaving behind AO, as it does not want to adapt to reality, it doesn’t want to self-value, it doesn’t respond to actual terms, it doesn’t itself affect. I just tried to get it to affect by confronting it with reality. But things really have to be real for that. (Logically, first a thing has to be real, then it can affect, unlike AO’s presumed order, which is a heavy handed reversal of logic, demanding the conclusion to sufficiently prescribe the conditions.)

VO gets the “why” ontoglogized. It recognizes the question itself as existent.
That wasn’t so hard, was it?
And yet it took over 2500 years.

Bad habit - philosophy disregarding itself. Ive forced it to quit that habit.

Next time you choose to cast a challenge, you might consider first ensuring that you can answer to it yourself.

And when and if you ever wake up from your delusion, try to figure out why you ever decided to be an enemy. You will be surprised and a bit disheartened by the reality of it.

What does it mean for a thing to be real?