attempt at a scientific definition of value

The concept value within value ontology refers to that which constitutes the momentum of the entity's self-sustaining through time. Value is incorporated in the particle as force that effectively counters, or harnesses against entropy. A particles self-valuing is the structure-in-time (path, circuitry) of its substance (energy, force, power to effect) in which other substance (energy, force, power to effect) is incorporated as increasing momentum of this structure-in-time. This structure in time is a constant in as far as it apprehends itself in terms of its own momentum, and these terms are its "values". Its momentum is its "self-valuing", the standard to its values. It persists in as far as it apprehends itself as necessary to itself, thereby necessary to its values.

As soon as it apprehends values separately from its own necessity to itself (self-valuing), it begins to disintegrate.

Value is directly translated into, or integrated as, momentum of the circular path of power to effect (thereby to empower) itself.

This power to effect and re-cause itself amounts also in power to cause change outside of itself.

I dont think value is absolute, meaning beyond human, and a concrete ethereal hierarchy of unchangeable values. I think the closest absolute objective function of value is life itself. The healthy and stable functioning of a life that is the highest human value. The exceptions are of course things like, when a human who commits suicide could be said to have valued death (perhaps they would have valued life more if not for certain things in their environment that beyond their control became to much). The saying 'one mans trash is another mans treasure' comes to mind when thinking of the nature of value. One man may value porn and sex while another values abstinence. One may value alcohol while another does not. One may value experimenting with pain as a form of pleasure, one may value avoiding pain at all costs. So is your whole thing attempting to quantize and categorize thus creating the absolute objective mapping of human value systems, and what they lead to, what they truly provide, how the value of what they provide can be quantized? So to be able to say 'this person is objectively wrong for valuing this or my values are more valuable then yours'? A main objective (whether they like it or not or would like to admit it or not) shared value of humans is money. This is how humans ensure their value of life, which I believe is the most valuable thing, so it is quite intuitive and obvious that money, the means in which that is accomplished is the most valuable thing. This leads to a very superficial discovery, in a sense discrediting intellectuality and suggesting ignorance is bliss, as long as you have money to provide your essentials and a healthy body there is nothing more you can truly hope for, or those are of the highest values, everything else that you may desire or do is just a form of entertainment, novelty, to see what we can see and do what we can do, exploring potentials in physicality and/or thought.

Values are dictated by the subject, not the other way around. The highest value is the valuer, per definition. If there is no valuer, there can be no value.

Value ontology is the ontology of the valuer, which is the hub of the universe.

A value can be something that an atom requires to exist. It's not a product of consciousness. Consciousness is a highly complex form of valuing.

Establishing objective value is the precise opposite of what VO does.

Life is not itself necessarily of value to the one who is living it. That is why people kill themselves. Life is a result of valuing. Life is valuing, and if it values itself, it will keep on living. But it will only value itself because it is a means to attain to certain values. There is no "will to live": at the basis of life, life is a contingency of the will to attain values.

I realize that this is a deeply radical reversal of perspective.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Values are dictated by the subject, not the other way around. The highest value is the valuer, per definition. If there is no valuer, there can be no value.

Value ontology is the ontology of the valuer, which is the hub of the universe.

A value can be something that an atom requires to exist. It's not a product of consciousness. Consciousness is a highly complex form of valuing.

Establishing objective value is the precise opposite of what VO does.

Life is not itself necessarily of value to the one who is living it. That is why people kill themselves. Life is a result of valuing. Life is valuing, and if it values itself, it will keep on living. But it will only value itself because it is a means to attain to certain values. There is no "will to live": at the basis of life, life is a contingency of the will to attain values.

I realize that this is a deeply radical reversal of perspective.

First your opening line you state this " The highest value is the valuer, per definition. If there is no valuer, there can be no value."

which contradicts your last paragraph, right?

No. The last paragraph says that if there is no value, the valuer will come to cease to exist. It say nothing about where there is no valuer.