AO vs VO: a friendly challenge

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?

So what value do either have in the grand scheme of things?

How do either attempt to help or hinder the human race?

What would be the reason given to study either or both?

Should there not be a reason given to begin with that motivates any given person to pursue either discipline?

Finally, how are we better off given that the world seems to function without either?

The world was functioning before Science as well. The world must always be functioning prior to any advancement. That is why there could be no beginning. And why there shall be no end.

RM, and more specifically AO, are aimed at gaining a full ontological understanding of “God, Man, Me, and Reality”, beyond Man’s current level. RM:AO is the coup de grâce of the struggle to finally put all of the pieces into a single understanding, to finally see very clearly how and why it ALL works as it does.

The need to see such is only driven by Man’s abuse of himself and all things as he lusts for an impossible and unneeded absolute control. RM:AO reveals what absolutely can and cannot be done, and in principle how to accomplish from the status quo to whatever the goal. Of course such would be very analytical and complex, although still much simpler than modern science would have it. RM:AO is for the very few serious thinkers not blinded by personal passions (pride, ego, fear, hatred,…).

Basically it is an extremely detailed map of principles concerning “how to get along with the universe” derived from “why the universe does what it does”. It reveals the highest level of priority from which grand decisions can be made without losing one’s way or getting lost in doubt or presumption within the maze of methods and moralities.

When fully grasped, it answers with certainty the age old question, “What should I/we do? And Why?” Thus ending unnecessary conflict, struggle, and suffering before it ever begins. Being so extremely comprehensive, RM:AO spews general principles and aphorisms concerning every topic. But unlike that great fiery ball in the sky, it is not merely an intensely bright light, but a floodlight of laser coherent illumination, lighting all terrains whether day or night.

As far as any one individual, each individual must step from where they are and thus have differing needs at different times even if intending the same goal.

Within the noise, there is logic and understanding, a “firmament within the clouds”. And with such understanding arises order and clarity, simplifying the burden upon the mind.

  • Let negative things be fleeting and small.
  • Expect and allow for positive things to accumulate more slowly through give and take within the noise.
  • Filter what comes to you by its relative value to what you are, not that for which you want.
  • Support that which supports you.
  • Match impedance with patience.

The list could go on and on.

There is no end to it. And there is no beginning, save from wherever you are.

So if you kill a pig this means you are killing something within yourself?

Jakob?

I missed this reply. Sorry encode.

VO allows man to be completely honest before himself. I don’t know about RM.

VO will simply allow human forcefulness to be cast in living forms, drawing it out of the deathly metaphysical economy which employs it now.
Essentially VO eliminates Metaphysics.
Value is never metaphysical.

Studying them back to back or side by side is useful in comparing the logics.
Through the lens of VO we can see how contrary to Valuing, Affectance is too much of a general term. It never leaves Metaphysics, always remains abstract.

Im not so sure about that. Shouldnt it speak for itself?

I dont see the world as functioning. We have another few decades or so before all forestry is gone. By some measures we’ve lost 75 percent of species the past century.

Without the logic of being as valuing, human beings will never be able to see what it is they’re destroying. So they will keep destroying.
I see VO, the acceptance of being as valuing, as the only way to avoid the extinction of life on the planet.