Rational Metaphysics

Let's see if we can learn the principles of Rational Metaphysics. I want to call on everyone who participates to please abstain from character judgments and finger-pointing except for this one judgment: "you are not being fully honest here". I think we can agree that philosophy and logic always require this, full honesty.

Of course it is often unclear who is being honest in the face of what. But given that it is the only thing that matters, that dishonesty (besides simply lack of capacity for reason) is the only thing that can stand in the way of progressing understanding, we must use this as a standard. Along with learning about RM, we might learn some things about honesty itself.

What this means is that whenever someone says "you are not being fully honest here", the one who is accused MUST investigate this claim. Otherwise I predict, given what I know of perspectivism, that this thread will almost instantly become invalid.

Because the claim must be investigated, the accuser must provide as much information as possible about the perceived falsity.

I give the word to James, for an exhibition of the main principles of RM in the form and dosage he thinks fit. These principles must then be probed, tested, falsified/verified for universal veracity, which is what RM claims.

As I have stated in the past, Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology is for designers, most especially in the fields of physics, psychology, sociology, and economics. Thus there is a limited audience who should have any interest in it. And yes, any logic based topic requires a greater degree of honesty, to both oneself and others, in order for the topic to advance and get to its higher assertions. This aspect is due to the fact that logic builds from lower premises to higher conclusions. Dishonesty along the way not only distorts the conclusion into fallacy, but also impedes any hope of getting to the final and finer points involved.

There are many ways to begin discussing RM, but I have found that constructing the ontology from it simplest concepts, although perhaps too simple for immediate use, is an easy way of getting it started.

As with any logic based proposal, it is critical, not merely preferred, that everyone involved agree to the premises of the proposed logic. In the case of RM, premises are chosen as definitions of ontological elements and chosen based upon the concept of rationality, ie. "it is rational to choose this definition even though other definitions are available".

Thus to begin, the first premise proposed as a fact and also a definition;
P1) Existence ≡ the set of all that has any affect and exclusive of all that has absolutely no affect.

a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other

The rationality is proposed as even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time. So unless wasting time is the purpose (or creating confusion), it is irrational to accept the notion that something with absolutely no affect exists such as to be concerned with it. Or "why would you bother accepting that something exists, if you already knew that it would have absolutely no affect one way or another?"

So can we agree upon P1?


=================================================================

P2) The simplest ontology involving affect (ie. "causing change"), is "affect upon affect" or "causing change in the ability to affect".

a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other


An ontology that has only one element, and in this case the only concern and very definition of existence, is as simple as one can get. In the case of "affect" being that element, action is inherently included, as opposed to perhaps having "material" or "mass" as the first element.

And P2?


====================================================================

P3) Potential to Affect, PtA = a situation that allows for the ability to affect.

In order for anything to have affect, it must have the potential to have that affect, thus affect must inherently have PtA.

Thus;
C1) All affect has PtA

a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other.



And P3 and C1?

Please respond in order to each assertion.

P1) Agree.

P2) Agree!

P3) This potential is itself affect. Why are we introducing the distinction this early on? You are not being fully honest here.

Pezer wrote:

P3) This potential is itself affect.

A potential is a situation that allows for an affect to take place. It is a definition of a word to be used throughout.

A glass sitting on the very edge of a table has the potential to fall (in a probabilistic sense). The potential to fall is not the falling itself. The potential to act, the situation that allows for action, must exist in order for the act to come about.

P3) Potential to Affect, PtA = a situation that allows for the ability to affect.
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other ?

Pezer wrote:

Why are we introducing the distinction this early on?

For the same reason everything else is being introduced - so that later discussions can proceed. It helps to introduce the terms BEFORE stating any logic involving them, doesn't it?

Pezer wrote:

You are not being fully honest here.

Please explicitly point out the instance of such accusations, if you are going to make them.
In what exact way am I being dishonest in your view?
... cuz I ain't see'n it.

"The rationality is proposed as even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time. So unless wasting time is the purpose (or creating confusion), it is irrational to accept the notion that something with absolutely no affect exists such as to be concerned with it. Or "why would you bother accepting that something exists, if you already knew that it would have absolutely no affect one way or another?"

If potential to affect is not itself affect then, according to our own definitions, it not only does not exist but is a waste of our time. If it is affect, my question regarding the purpose of distinguishing it among other distinctions that will certainly arise later so early on stands, and should not have an unreachable answer.

Pezer wrote:

"The rationality is proposed as even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time. So unless wasting time is the purpose (or creating confusion), it is irrational to accept the notion that something with absolutely no affect exists such as to be concerned with it. Or "why would you bother accepting that something exists, if you already knew that it would have absolutely no affect one way or another?"

If potential to affect is not itself affect then, according to our own definitions, it not only does not exist but is a waste of our time. If it is affect, my question regarding the purpose of distinguishing it among other distinctions that will certainly arise later so early on stands, and should not have an unreachable answer.

So you believe that looking at the map or figuring what you could say to deliver the most effect, "measuring your potential", is a waste of time? If you are not driving or talking then looking to see where you are or paying attention to who you are talking to or what you are talking about, is not only a waste, but such things don't even exist?

That would explain a lot of people's behavior, but I'm afraid that I would have to disagree. In RM:AO, the situation, the "potential" is measured. The terrain is examined and exists regardless of whether it is being traversed.

But as I said first thing, this subject is for "designers", people who think in advance concerning their potential to accomplish things. So obviously you are not interested and thus, you are right in that this subject is a waste of Your time.

I see a lot of accusations there. Considering the OP, I believe you are not being fully honest here.

I believe that, if we are setting up an inquiry or a theoretical tool of any sort, we are to be coherent within what we set out, and nothing beyond. You mention the potential to affect as not affect in the third premise, while in the first two declaring there is nothing worth considering beyond affect.

If potential to affect is worth noting, it is necessarily worth noting -for us- as affect itself. If we are to start analyzing consequences of affect, I would ask that we clearly establish why and how.

James S Saint wrote:

P2) The simplest ontology involving affect (ie. "causing change"), is "affect upon affect" or "causing change in the ability to affect".

a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other


An ontology that has only one element, and in this case the only concern and very definition of existence, is as simple as one can get. In the case of "affect" being that element, action is inherently included, as opposed to perhaps having "material" or "mass" as the first element.

Do you see what I mean? If mass or material follow affect, than any thing that affects which you ascribe potential to is affect, therefore its potential must be affect, specially if we proceed under the understanding that, even if other truths exist beyond affect, they are irrelevant to the establishment of our full honesty.

James, I need another day or two to work through your premises 1-3 and conclusion, in order to do full justice here to the idea and not be hasty. Please be patient and I will have the opportunity to think seriously about this soon.

Initially, before I am able to fully dive in, I need to ask clarification on a term used: what is the definition of a "situation"? This term is used in P3.

Does someone care to explain to me how there can be affect without any potential to do so or within a situation where such an ability does not exist?

P3 is merely a clarification of the definition of the word "potential".

Wiki wrote:

Noun
Potential (physics)

potential (plural potentials)

  1. Currently unrealized ability (with the most common adposition being to)
  2. (physics) The gravitational potential is the radial (irrotational, static) component of a gravitational field, also known as the Newtonian potential or the gravitoelectric field.[1][2][3]
  3. (physics) The work (energy) required to move a reference particle from a reference location to a specified location in the presence of a force field, for example to bring a unit positive electric charge from an infinite distance to a specified point against an electric field.
  4. (grammar) A verbal construction or form stating something is possible or probable.

Wiki wrote:

Noun

situation (plural situations)

  1. The way in which something is positioned vis-à-vis its surroundings.
  2. The place in which something is situated; a location.
  3. Position or status with regard to conditions and circumstances.
  4. The combination of circumstances at a given moment; a state of affairs.

"The rationality is proposed as even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time."

Explain to me potential as other than affect in the face of this.

Alright, having reviewed this I make the following statements here, hoping we can move forward to the next level of understanding of RM.

P1, yes I accept the definition that all things existing have affect, we may ignore as irrelevant any existing things that don't have any affect at all. Existence itself is therefore the sum of all affects.

P2, yes I can accept this too, ontology is formally the study of affection, especially the smallest or most fundamental affects, would be the first concern to it. So we get minimal affects affecting other affects, this would be the basic ontological setup.

P3.. Also yes, I stipulate to the notion that every affect must have potential-to-affect, since nothing can exist or do anything without first having potential to be or do those things. The affection itself is like the realization of PtA.

For the conclusion, given premise 1 and 3 it follows logically that no thing which exists (and is not irrelevant) can be without PtA, therefore all non-irrelevant existing things (I.e. all affects) must have PtA.

As a side;

Rationality refers to the rationing of one's actions or thoughts in accord to one's goal. If a thought contains nothing that would affect one's goal in any way, being rational means ignoring that thought because it has no position in any plan to be rationed into.

The conclusion C1 refers to the idea that if an affect exists, then it is inherent that the potential to have that affect must also exist. So even though we start with the notion that it is irrational to be concerned with anything void of affect, we have already inherently included (as per C1) that it must be rational to "also" be concerned with anything that has the potential-to-affect, to be later measured in terms of "PtA".

Thus rational behavior involves;
1) attending to affecting that is currently going on, the present, and
2) attending to the potential for affecting, the situation that will lead to future affects.

The statement;
"The rationality is proposed as, even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time."

is inherently proposing that the present situation that leads to future affects (the "potential-to-affect") is not a pointless concern in the ontology because the current situation, the potential, directly implies the presence of affecting and in a sense, is a map concerning the current directions of affecting.

Does that help at all?

Yes.

Quote :

The statement;
"The rationality is proposed as, even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time."

is inherently proposing that the present situation that leads to future affects (the "potential-to-affect") is not a pointless concern in the ontology because the current situation, the potential, directly implies the presence of affecting and in a sense, is a map concerning the current directions of affecting.

I am beginning to see... So side premise:

SP1: Potential to affect is an affect that conduces to future affects consciously, with intent.

Agree?

Pezer wrote:

SP1: Potential to affect is an affect that conduces to future affects consciously, with intent.

Agree?

"Conscious"???
We haven't said anything concerning consciousness. And the only "intent" mentioned is the intent of forming an ontology based upon what has actual affect and ignoring anything proposed as has no affect.

Some people argue that God must exist because He created the universe that can be seen all around. My first response would tend to be, "Perhaps, but what has he done lately?"

My point would actually be that if "God" currently has no affect whatsoever (as proposed by Nietzsche), then God would not exist. Perhaps God existed long ago (the Big Bang proponents), but it isn't rational to be concerned with anything that doesn't exist today regardless of whether it had existed 13.4 billions years ago.

But other than that, "consciousness" is NOT a part of this... yet.

The concept so far is merely that if anything exists then it is affecting ("has affect") or at minimum has the potential to affect (will be affecting shortly). Whether it consciously intends anything is irrelevant at the moment. For right now, "affectance" is referring merely to extreme, sub, sub atomic substance, the make of the universe. "Affectance" is the RM:AO name for that substance of which all physical things are made. Affectance is the lowest form of existence that a rational mind has any need to be concerned with.

SP1: Potential to affect is an affect affecting the state of affects in the future in a different way than seem coherent in the present.

?

I know my wording is a little uncouth for the tone we have set, but throw a dog a treat (if the treat is there to be thrown).

Pezer wrote:

SP1: Potential to affect is an affect
affecting the state of affects in the future
in a different way than seems coherent in the present.

?

You can't equate the act of actually affecting with the potential to do that affecting. One speaks to the strength of your army while the other speaks of its current activities. Those are different issues.

In physics, it is the electric potential versus the electric current. The potential is not active. The current is. The potential can and does change, but only via a current making that change. The potential causes a current which rearranges the potentials because the potentials are being used up in order to create the currents which might inadvertently raise a potential in another location. That is all any electric circuit ever does. And in space, that is all the entire universe ever does. The potential is the "PtA" and the "current" is the "Affectance". In an economy, the potential is the dollar figures involved and the current is the active trading. The mind had thoughts or concepts and the actual thinking process. A society has people in an environment and whatever those people are doing.

The ancient I Ching ontology was of "the Fixed and the Changing". But in reality, there is no truly "Fixed" and thus the presumed "Fixed" must be taken as "relatively fixed".

Good, so now we have a basic epistemic division as well as the ontological setup; we have a duality between thing and environment, or movement and "static" condition, or that which acts and that which, beyond the acting, conditions the action and is also conditioned by it, reciprocally.

This division also being used as a model for thought, behavior, economics, society, nature, electromagnetism, etc.

So,

1) Things that exist are affecting (other things);

2) Any thing (let's say X) is being affected by a) other affecting things, and b) X's own PtA.

3) X's PtA is also being affected by X, via X's affection causing drain (or entropy) upon the store of PtA from which it came/comes

If affect is our base unit, all things must be affect. In some way, potential must be affect. If it isn't, it is not nothing even, just pointless. How can we get around this?


1 Things that exist are only affect.

2 Affect thus can only affect affect.

3 Potential is not affect, and can affect affect.

If there is any genius in your theory, it is in the honest resolution of this contradiction.

Pezer wrote:

If affect is our base unit, all things must be affect. In some way, potential must be affect. If it isn't, it is not nothing even, just pointless. How can we get around this?


1 Things that exist are only affect.

"Things that exist are only affect"
is NOT the same as
"Things that exist must have affect"

In every endeavor, one must begin from wherever they are. We can agree that for anything to be said to exist, it must have affect. We have not agreed that affect is the only "thing" (whatever that means) that exists.

Logic is about finding something presumed "known" or agreed upon and then deducing what else could have been known and agreed upon.

We began with the agreement that for anything to be said to exist, it must have affect. But as we examine that word "affect", we can realize other things that have already been said without saying them, things that we could have agreed upon as well. C1 is one of those things;

C1) All affect has PtA

Due to that statement/conclusion, we could have begun with;
) For anything to be said to exist, it must have affect and potential to affect.

But that isn't all we can deduce from our initial agreement. So even if we had started from there, we would still find yet another place from which we could have begun.

Logic builds a mountain of understanding and all from simple ideas. Any group wherein all members already know that mountain can start with the entire mountain and proceed from there. We are not that group. The endeavor is to become that group, to find a mountain of agreement. But we must begin from where we are, somewhere in the middle.

In the contest between a group and its environment, having a mountain of immutable mass (indisputable under-standing) with which the opponent must contend certainly gives the group an advantage. Momentum can be said to be formed of fast paced agreements. And momentum determines every action and the victor of every contest. And one cannot get faster than "already" agreed upon.

Conclusion C1 says that if any one thing exists, then something else must exist, specifically the potential - that "thing's" ability to affect - "something ELSE". Where did that "something else" come from? It comes from yet another conclusion that we could have begun with.

P4) Affecting directly implies one thing influencing or changing another thing, two "things; an "affecter" and an "affectee".

Thus;

C2) For any one thing to exist, more than one thing must exist.

At this point, we have 3 "things" involved arising from our first agreement;
Existence necessarily leads to;
1) There must be affect,
2) there must be potential to affect,
3) there must be more than one item.

But again, we have NOT agreed that "the only things that exist are those 3 things". That would be an entirely different issue.

So;
P4 and C2;
a) agree
b) disagree
c) other?

P1) Existence ≡ the set of all that has any affect and exclusive of all that has absolutely no affect.

For me to agree, we would have to re-formulate, not just propose an alternative, but reformulate this premise. That is, unless potential does have affect, which, if affect is the base unit instead of matter, is the same thing as saying it is affect.

"An ontology that has only one element, and in this case the only concern and very definition of existence, is as simple as one can get. In the case of "affect" being that element, action is inherently included, as opposed to perhaps having "material" or "mass" as the first element."

What I'm trying to get at, since we are running out of time and I have never had the patience for proper logic anyway, is that it seems to me the element of potential is linked directly via some chain to affect, is affect in some way. This is not a refutation of your theory, it is a blind spot with the promise of massive sophistication.

You speak of a group building, and have spoken to me about trust.

Can you define potential to affect without using any construct outside of what was set out in the premises, such as situation and ability?

Capable wrote:

1) Things that exist are affecting (other things);

2) Any thing (let's say X) is being affected by a) other affecting things, and b) X's own PtA.

3) X's PtA is also being affected by X, via X's affection causing drain (or entropy) upon the store of PtA from which it came/comes

One cannot say that a thing is "affecting itself" except in loose terms. If a truly singular "thing", having no separate internal components, were said to be affecting itself there would be no change. The affecter and the affectee would be the same item, in the same location. The proposed changing would occur instantaneously, having no separation at all and thus could not be said to "have changed from one state to another" because there would have been no time between the two proposed states, thus there must have been only one state. Without change of state from being at one state at one time to another state at another time, one cannot claim any "affect".

We haven't gotten into "time" yet, so this is getting a bit ahead. Time and distance are epistemologically related. They both determine each other. The measure of one translates into the measure of the other. What we call "time" causes what we call "distance". This is all related to special relativity. But if either time or distance are truly zero between proposed two items, then there is no separation or distinction at all between the items. And we call that state, "one item" because we are only concerned with affects coming from that thing and if there is no separation in properties, there can be no distinction in resultant affects. In Effect, one of the proposed two items, doesn't really "exist" by our definition of "existing".


Pezer, you seem to be missing the point. What C1 is about is that fact that potential, the "ability to have affect" is ALREADY inherent in the proposal of the concept of affect and thus also existence. One cannot have affect without having PtA. Thus if we propose that there is affect, we have ALREADY inherently included "potential". Potential is already a part of the entire concept of affect. It isn't a separate entity, but rather merely a distinguished property.

It is like someone saying that something has "volume". By saying that, he would have already claimed that the object has "length". Length is not being proposed as a new item, a different thing, but a part of the very concept of "volume". But unless "volume" involves only one dimension, "length" is not the same thing as "volume", but merely included in it.

It is the same with potential and affect. Affect is not a trivial entity. It has a variety of inherent and distinguishable features of interest, just as volume has length, width, and also depth. If one proposes that affect exists, then one has already proposed that potential exists as well as more than one item, because one cannot exist unless the others exists as a part of it. They are "part and parcel", but NOT the same concept.

The same will be true of anything you would want to "reformulate" it into, but what would that be?

What do you want to reformulate the definition of existence into that wouldn't have the exact same issue with you? Anything can be broken down into a million other concepts of concern. It all depends upon of what you have rational interest.

If merely volume exists then;
Length must exist
Width must exist
Depth must exist
Distance must exist
And as we will logically discover;
Time must exist
Affect must exist
Values must exist
Degrees must exist
Change must exist
Pulses must exist
Frequency must exist
Reaction must exist
Locations must exist
Separation must exist
Difference must exist
Summation must exist
Qualities must exist
Properties must exist
Positive and negative must exist
Quantities must exist
Objects must exist
Recursion must exist
Objects within objects must exist
And even Consciousness and Rationality must exist
As well as Irrationality.

For any one attribute of existence to "exist", every single thing that you see all around you must exist. The universe is at every moment, only what it absolutely must be. There are no options for existence. In fact, as it turns out, there isn't even an option for the universe itself to exist and only as exactly what it is. The only options involve what you wish to name as a property of existence for your own use and purpose, your "ontology". "God" didn't have any choice in creating the universe. If one exists, the other must exist.

But for sake of your own purposes, you might not want to call anything "God" because that would give credence to those "other guys", the old religions, and we want to give credit only to the new religion (aka "Secularism"). It is a bit of a moronic strategy, but "it is what it is". Even the Biblical "God" said to "name the animals". The "animals" are the entities of concern. So okay, do what the Biblical God said, "name the entities whatever you like". Don;t call the entity "Secularism" a "religion". God never said that you had to name anything "God" (and according to the record of Moses, said at that time to refer to him as "I am that I am", which translates in Hebrew to "what is, is that which is". You can name things as whatever you like, just try to not be too stupid about it and aim for being Rational, more specifically, Sentient and Sane.

In RM:AO, we begin with the concept of "affectance" because we can all agree that existence AT LEAST has affectance (the collection of all affecters and/or affectees). From that point, we begin deducing what else we have already inadvertently included merely because we know that indisputably, affectance exists.