A Project that led to the ToE (Theory of Everything)

A Short Overview of the ToE/UFT/GUT Project
The project began in the field of Rational Metaphysics wherein Definitional Logic outlines details concerning why the universe exists at all. But more significantly, it lays a foundation from which an understanding of exactly why and how particles form, what form they take, and why they do what they do.. all that they do. Basically it reveals an understanding of why the laws of physics are what they have been noted to be by contemporary physics.

In order to demonstrate the logic involved, a computer(s) (a single-bit-processor and a PC) had to be programmed to handle the issue of EM turbulence within a volume of space. In order to get that accomplished such that a small PC could handle the nearly infinite number of concerns involved, I had to come up with a method to describe generic turbulence such that calculations could be made concerning its interaction. I dubbed that method "Afflate Analysis" which is a combination of statistical analysis, analytic geometry, and tensor analysis.

An Afflate is merely an "affectence oblate" or simply put, "a clump of turbulence". It is a statistical entity and a tensor field element. 200,000 afflates become a rudimentary model of an otherwise vacuous portion of space filled with turbulent EM noise/chaos. By applying the proper "rules of afflate engagement" equally to each and every afflate and letting logic take its course, particles begin to form. The particles choose to become positive, negative or neutral based on the particular balance of the turbulence that inspired them. Still without further instruction, the particles begin to display all of the known behaviors of subatomic particles including inertia, momentum, inverse squared mass attraction, inverse squared charge attraction and repulsion, quantization limits, strong and weak force bonding, spin, and so on.

What is interesting besides being able to see exactly why these phenomena are happening, is that with proper and precise mathematics and programming (very poorly done at the moment), the exact relations concerning the laws of physics can be calculated and even measured literally off of the computer screen. And what is more interesting about that is new relationships can be seen of which it appears contemporary physics is not yet aware.

The long shot of it is that the project offers to explain the "why" behind every known law and phenomena of physics and even explain things like the famous photon double slit experiment with ultimate detail and precision.

There without-music, you can use this thread to whine about how impossible it is to understand anything.

Transferred from the Definitional Logic thread...

Fixed Cross wrote:

What is more, I would say that it is an interpretation that is in fact dictated by logic! The idea of objects, of particles, could not exist if not for rudimentarily logical processes of discernment of comparison. In this way, I can see that Saints might theoretically have accomplished what he says, that it may in fact be possible to re-create the universe as it is defined in scientific, rational, logical terms by using these terms directly, instead of what sciences does, to "objectively observe" (which is impossible) and then apply these terms to the observations.

If this is in fact accomplished, this is of course nothing short of revolutionary, not to mention rather dangerous. What would have been accomplished then, is that the rational man has managed to value the universe effectively in his own terms, and established his own ground-term, his self-valuing as a rational being, to perfection.

It is hard to say if the benefits or the danger outweighs.

Masterfully stated and better than I could have said it. Thank you, Fixed Cross.

without-music wrote:

Yes, well said, Fixed. I have to apologize for my lack of patience, but James and I have had this argument (as well as ones similar) a number of times on ILP.

Quote :

That it may work is not unimaginable, considering that "the physical" is itself an interpretation.

What is more, I would say that it is an interpretation that is in fact dictated by logic! The idea of objects, of particles, could not exist if not for rudimentarily logical processes of discernment of comparison. In this way, I can see that Saints might theoretically have accomplished what he says, that it may in fact be possible to re-create the universe as it is defined in scientific, rational, logical terms by using these terms directly, instead of what sciences does, to "objectively observe" (which is impossible) and then apply these terms to the observations.

Indeed. I have gotten at this idea with James before, the idea that the physical is itself a (certain, necessary, inevitable) falsification that is always-already human. If we can affirm this notion, and speak of the Real in terms of the Symbolic (which is to say, discard the Real altogether as unnecessary Platonism, as Nietzsche would have us do), then space is made in which a project like James's can be allowed to take hold. I believe I have already illustrated the trouble I have with James's project here, so I'll leave it at that.

The comparison between Dionysian and Apollonian is apt. I suppose, in some sense, the conflict between James and I is a microcosm for the primordial conflict at the heart of the human condition, the conflict that gives birth to both life and art -- and, with enough finesse, perhaps life as art.

Although I agree the with apparent analogy with Apollo and Dionysus, This project is merely a stepping stone of understanding to the greater accomplishment.

Because this project was founded, not in Science, but Metaphysics, ALL terms are stated as generically applicable concepts. The relations are necessarily true for any and all fields of thought or endeavor, every field of Science, every endeavor of societies, and every endeavor of any individual.. every philosophy.. "Theory of Everything" (and now "Law of Everything").

It is above the concern of Chaos vs Order. It is the order of the their contest. Physical reality is merely one of its children.

James S Saint wrote:

A Short Overview of the ToE/UFT/GUT Project
The project began in the field of Rational Metaphysics wherein Definitional Logic outlines details concerning why the universe exists at all. But more significantly, it lays a foundation from which an understanding of exactly why and how particles form, what form they take, and why they do what they do.. all that they do. Basically it reveals an understanding of why the laws of physics are what they have been noted to be by contemporary physics.

In order to demonstrate the logic involved, a computer(s) (a single-bit-processor and a PC) had to be programmed to handle the issue of EM turbulence within a volume of space. In order to get that accomplished such that a small PC could handle the nearly infinite number of concerns involved, I had to come up with a method to describe generic turbulence such that calculations could be made concerning its interaction. I dubbed that method "Afflate Analysis" which is a combination of statistical analysis, analytic geometry, and tensor analysis.

An Afflate is merely an "affectence oblate" or simply put, "a clump of turbulence". It is a statistical entity and a tensor field element. 200,000 afflates become a rudimentary model of an otherwise vacuous portion of space filled with turbulent EM noise/chaos. By applying the proper "rules of afflate engagement" equally to each and every afflate and letting logic take its course, particles begin to form. The particles choose to become positive, negative or neutral based on the particular balance of the turbulence that inspired them. Still without further instruction, the particles begin to display all of the known behaviors of subatomic particles including inertia, momentum, inverse squared mass attraction, inverse squared charge attraction and repulsion, quantization limits, strong and weak force bonding, spin, and so on.

What is interesting besides being able to see exactly why these phenomena are happening, is that with proper and precise mathematics and programming (very poorly done at the moment), the exact relations concerning the laws of physics can be calculated and even measured literally off of the computer screen. And what is more interesting about that is new relationships can be seen of which it appears contemporary physics is not yet aware.

The long shot of it is that the project offers to explain the "why" behind every known law and phenomena of physics and even explain things like the famous photon double slit experiment with ultimate detail and precision.

can you give an example of a "why"?
For example why is it that two different masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time?

Abstract wrote:

can you give an example of a "why"?
For example why is it that two different masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time?

Well, the simple reason for your question would be that if 2 masses were to be in the same location at the same time, they would be the same mass, merely twice as much of it. I could ask, "why can't 2 clouds be in the same place at the same time?"

But to get into the really deep understanding requires a far more serious education on exactly what "mass" really means. Science doesn't define it very exactly, thus RM doesn't use the term. But inertia is effectively the same thing and RM does use the concept of inertia. What we call "mass" is really a culmination of turbulent energy. Energy isn't a common term in RM either, but strongly relates to affectence. RM uses affectence, from affect, as its fundamental element of concern. Existence is affectence. Affectence then causes space, time, and all of the physical phenomena.

A very short and surprizing example of a why that Science apparently hasn't figured out yet is why it is that an electron doesn't go zipping into a proton and get annihilated. The surprising, yet provable answer is called "the weak force" in Science but is actually due to the fact that, believe it or not, the proton pushes it away out to its orbital radius. If it tries to leave its orbit, the proton will pull it back in, but will not allow it to get closer. Although I know exactly why it does that, which came as a stunning surprise to me, the whole thing is rather complex.

Contemporary physics has a few fundamental formula close to right, but not quite. One of those is the formula for charge and/mass attraction, Q1*Q2 / (4πε0r^2). That formula, as it turns out is very close to right as long as the particles are at a respectable distance. But when the particles get very close, that formula is too inaccurate to be used and doesn't really apply. A negative particle when approaching a positive particle of greater inertia, will in fact be repelled. The particle will end up maintaining a distant orbit as it cannot get closer nor further away and thus we have atoms. Without that repulsion, there would be no atoms and no molecules and thus no life to wonder why.

What is the source of this repulsive effect that "large mass" charged particles, such as protons, have on "low mass" inversely charged particles, such as electrons, over a very short distance? It may be complex, but surely you can give a basic explanation with appeal to a little math and some basic conceptual construction and reference.

Capable wrote:

What is the source of this repulsive effect that "large mass" charged particles, such as protons, have on "low mass" inversely charged particles, such as electrons, over a very short distance? It may be complex, but surely you can give a basic explanation with appeal to a little math and some basic conceptual construction and reference.

One must be careful of what one says publicly before formal publication in the academic or scientific community. It is a bit like being an attorney in a murder trial. The academic world and the political world are pretty identical, a society of snakes in a land of lies. I have already run across someone trying to claim the theory as his own. And in their world, first publication gets the prize regardless of all else. I am also a little concerned as to exactly how the world is going to see the over-all implications of Jack. As someone recently stated, it is a bit dangerous. I'm not so much worried about the world knowing as much as in what order they learn.

But I will tell you that the proton actually sees the electron inside that radius as a positive particle.

Very well then. I would not encourage you to divulge more here than you are ready. I would perhaps encourage you to write a brief treatise of your findings and discoveries, and get it published somewhere, anywhere. That way you can be free from worry about your idea/s being stolen or discovered by someone else. That way you would be free to discuss and spread knowledge of your discoveries everywhere possible, which would be ideal if indeed your discoveries are what they claim to be.

That being said, I will move this in a different direction - utility, or hypothetical postulatory derivation of larger implications. Let us assume, for the moment, that what you claim to have done is correct, that you have indeed built a perfect "model" (or sub- or meta-reality) of existence with respect to particle formation, the natural laws and mathematical-logical relations of these, etc. Let us say you have derived reality.

Based on this assumption, what follows? What is the end-result, the implication/s of your discovery? We can assume for argument's sake that a ToE is entirely possible and may/will be discovered in our lifetime, or at least quite soon. There are certain logical difficulties and philosophical problems associated with this assumption, but let us shelve those for the moment: assuming a true ToE, what follows from this, and in what sense/with respect to what, and why?

1) My first concern was that of the lust of Man for domination of Life.

Man always sees the most blatantly obvious tool for aggression over whoever he has seen as his enemy and lusts quickly to use it, leaving figuring out why he didn't want to for later. In the West, that enemy is none other than the population itself. The ToE offers first a perspective to allow for the original division of heaven and Earth wherein the chosen isolate totally from the unchosen. The Chosen live in relative peace and the unchosen are governed by strife and endless struggle. The "Devil" is their warden. The ToE allows for such a paradigm to be mathematically precise and undauntable. That is the first most obvious "Weapon".

The second most obvious weapon involves the ability to chose a target within perhaps 10,000 miles, push a button and then express shock and great concern that those bad guys over there did something to turn that satellite, submarine, underground bunker, aircraft, or even town into no more than dust and mush. Push a button in a basement in Virginia and shed a public tear for Peking's recent "spontaneous disintegration" into dust and mush. It makes no difference whatsoever of what the material was made. But turn up the dial too far, and rather than mere disintegration, the sub atomic energy and mass becomes radiant energy, from which the sight of a 100 megaton nuclear explosion would appear as little more than a firecracker. Nothing could stop this weapon short of a black-hole (or turning up that dial too far).

The third weapon, not so obvious, is truly the Lord of All Weapons. I won't go into what it does and certainly not how it does it, but the upshot is that it makes weapon 1 and 2 seem like teens with BB guns trying to protect the neighborhood corner territory as their domain. Even the black-hole can't stop weapon 3.

2) On the brighter side, very many advances in technologies become within reach such as communications, huge memory storage advance, nanotech, very endless "free" energy, and all the fun things you see being used in society to spawn greater rush into a non-human world.

3) All religions, all governments, and all organizations of every type will change. Once it becomes clear what is really controlling what, "who's the real boss" amongst all the noise, all else bows to what cannot be changed.

4) Life begins to be about living again rather than conquering, about increasing its momentum of harmony, not the height of its pyramidic temples. Medicines return to being about curing, not controlling. Laws become about arbitrating, not controlling. Psychology becomes about increasing life's harmony, not holding it in predesignated places.

5) Laws and moralities get reduced to demographic concerns only, with freedom to find ones nitch. And the "Devil" is locked into a cage of light within which there are no shadows in which to hide or reach out to make that unseen touch.

Man's 10,000 year dance with the Devil comes to an end for once and for all time.


Other than, I don't really expect much will change.

Quote :

Tethered by reality;

There is the ongoing cause of all that is.
There is the order and chaos brought about by that cause.
There is the adversary to every life.
And there is you.. an instance of life.


The rest is just noise…

_____________________________________________

Amongst all the noise there are many entities great and small, all vying for attention and ultimate influence – “God wannabes”. Some are mindless formations propagating through their circumstances. Some are forms of life, temporarily struggling to survive, not really knowing why and certainly not how, but merely presuming a purpose, need, and desire. Most all merely adding their bit to the noise.

James S Saint wrote:

1) My first concern was that of the lust of Man for domination of Life.

Man always sees the most blatantly obvious tool for aggression over whoever he has seen as his enemy and lusts quickly to use it, leaving figuring out why he didn't want to for later. In the West, that enemy is none other than the population itself. The ToE offers first a perspective to allow for the original division of heaven and Earth wherein the chosen isolate totally from the unchosen. The Chosen live in relative peace and the unchosen are governed by strife and endless struggle. The "Devil" is their warden. The ToE allows for such a paradigm to be mathematically precise and undauntable. That is the first most obvious "Weapon".

The second most obvious weapon involves the ability to chose a target within perhaps 10,000 miles, push a button and then express shock and great concern that those bad guys over there did something to turn that satellite, submarine, underground bunker, aircraft, or even town into no more than dust and mush. Push a button in a basement in Virginia and shed a public tear for Peking's recent "spontaneous disintegration" into dust and mush. It makes no difference whatsoever of what the material was made. But turn up the dial too far, and rather than mere disintegration, the sub atomic energy and mass becomes radiant energy, from which the sight of a 100 megaton nuclear explosion would appear as little more than a firecracker. Nothing could stop this weapon short of a black-hole (or turning up that dial too far).

The third weapon, not so obvious, is truly the Lord of All Weapons. I won't go into what it does and certainly not how it does it, but the upshot is that it makes weapon 1 and 2 seem like teens with BB guns trying to protect the neighborhood corner territory as their domain. Even the black-hole can't stop weapon 3.

With respect to this need to dominate-control: I argue that only an 'evolution of conscience' can address this. This must be based in a philosophical increase in self-understanding, not just of the various modes and means of thought and action but more essentially of emotion and feeling, intention and affect, expectation and will and hope. What man needs is new capacity to envision, imagine how life/self COULD be, which invariably leads into how it OUGHT to be. Man must come to the threshold of self-disclosure that affords him such immense vastness of self-encounter that he either perishes under the weight of it or assumes the self-responsibility and fortitude to bear it. What is the instinct/drive to dominate-control but mere animality unrestrained, unspiritualized, by this I mean unconditioned by subtler self-understandings of conscience?

It may be the case that these sort of higher possibilities of conscience may actualize only when man reaches the limit of his ability to bear the crude self-destructivity of his unrestrained animality. Technology is a means to actualizing the human, be it "good" or "bad", healthy or harmful, constructive or destructive. All is edified by technology, save.... conscience itself. The means are increased many-fold, but the more essential ground from which these more fundamentally spring can remain cloaked and veiled, and even become more so at the hands of technological progress. Technology and science tend to insulate man within surface environments and the various logics and conditions of these environments, at the expense of subtler more "spiritual" holistic possibilities - this is because technology/science creates of this surface a new world, new possibilities for reality and life. That these are often lacking in the "spiritual" nature, more comprehensive and affective self-envisioning and grander understandings does not belie the fact that these new scientific-technical grounds themselves tend to supplant what came before them.

If the ToE is indeed true and acts to most fundamentally ground the scientific-technical paradigm, this would certainly act to begin effacing that which came before, the poetic-emotive-affective natures of man, in short his conscience, which speaks to his aesthetics and capacities for valuation. This is largely because these capacities have tended to survive unconsciously, largely unknown by man, veiled yet kept alive therein by appeal to Gods, metaphysics, universalities, whatever. This religious appeal, despite warping man, has also allowed for the preservation of these elements of conscience, albeit in a mostly simplistic and undeveloped form. The threat of technology and science is that it effaces even this veiling, it makes these elements no longer necessary to (social, interpersonal and personal) life. A life built upon a scientific-technical paradigm grounded firmly in a ToE need make no use whatsoever of these "atavisms" of man's past being/s. Conscience may have no place in the human world of the future.

Yet we can also side with Heidegger perhaps and note that technology-science, especially through the ToE represents the highest peak of resistance against which man may come into the highest self-awareness and self-realization. Science may destroy the mysticisms but leave intact the jewels which these mysticisms have served to guard for thousands of years. This would be a "spiritualized" science, one not wontonly destructive or "for its own sake", one without ultimately closed logics, but with broader appeal to the world, to the human past-experiential and historical contents which still, despite modernity, serve to provide the basis for "what it means to be human". When science can respect the contents as well as the forms of the human being, then science will perhaps sufficiently humanize so as to be capable of edifying man without instead effacing him.

Quote :

2) On the brighter side, very many advances in technologies become within reach such as communications, huge memory storage advance, nanotech, very endless "free" energy, and all the fun things you see being used in society to spawn greater rush into a non-human world.

Yes, and my previous commentary applies here as much as it does to the weaponizing of technological progress. Man rushes head-first into his own dehumanization, eager (he thinks) to rid himself of the burden of living. Only by directly understanding that to live is to suffer, to be burdened, and that seeking escape is seeking one's own self-annihilation at the hands of one's own assumed self-impossibility, will man perhaps overcome this. We NEED these sort of technological possibilities if we are to survive, grow and evolve, become something grand and make of man a truly rational, sane and civilized entity.

Quote :

3) All religions, all governments, and all organizations of every type will change. Once it becomes clear what is really controlling what, "who's the real boss" amongst all the noise, all else bows to what cannot be changed.

This is probably deserving of an entirely separate topic in itself. I would encourage you to frame this question and then post it within either the Social Theory & Economics or the Religion forum here, depending on which you feel best serves the substance of this potential inquiring.

Quote :

4) Life begins to be about living again rather than conquering, about increasing its momentum of harmony, not the height of its pyramidic temples. Medicines return to being about curing, not controlling. Laws become about arbitrating, not controlling. Psychology becomes about increasing life's harmony, not holding it in predesignated places.

Aye that is possible, but again without a likewise philosophical uplift this technological possibility only further enslaves man. It is possible that man must be enslaved in order to break free from all possibility of enslavement. If man is truly in need, as a species, of such crude methods of reactionary stimulus then we can hope that the destructive possibilities ushered in by a ToE (a self-edified and firmly grounded, universally applicable science) would come slowly enough to allow for the reactions to build their own momentums and ultimately break out of the enslavement. It may be the case that SPEED, time (which is of course to say simply quantity of intensity of force with respect to the potential destabilizing effects of this intensity) is the most crucial factor here, maybe the only one that really counts for anything at all.

Quote :

5) Laws and moralities get reduced to demographic concerns only, with freedom to find ones nitch. And the "Devil" is locked into a cage of light within which there are no shadows in which to hide or reach out to make that unseen touch.

Man's 10,000 year dance with the Devil comes to an end for once and for all time.

I am not so sure about this. Morality is based on far more than physical/metaphysical uncertainty. If we remove uncertainty from man's relationship to the universe, have we really removed the impetus for morality? I see the genesis of morality within the deepest most fundamental spheres of man himself, his consciousness and the subjective self-encounters and conditions of its possibilities. I suppose I am largely sceptical that even a ToE as you describe it could unveil the inner subjective nature of the human being. I do not think that ANY outside-imposed understanding, even a ToE, could bring about the 'apotheosis of self-consciousness' as higher and more comprehensive/self-creative understanding and will-vision. The more man learns about himself "from the outside", which is to say from scientific objectification under theorizing or model-building or crude grasping manipulation, the more he can be drawn away from self-oriented discovery and focus. That being said, of course the scientific paradigm also affords the opposite possibility as well, if taken from the right perspective.

I see a clear place for ethics and law within a post-human world: these would be firmly rooted in value, in the capacities for valuation which are the basis of all human action, thought and feeling. Knowledge subordinated to wisdom is what I am trying to get at here. Thus far the scientific paradigm has been trying to push the opposing perspective, wisdom subordiante to knowledge, wisdom AS knowledge. Perhaps no greater mantra for science can be conceived than 'wisdom as knowledge'. We see the clear folly of such an approach, however, and it seems that this folly is rooted most essentially within the ethical conscience of man, meaning that a future "humanized/spiritualized" science would not efface this ethical conscience but rather free it entirely and lift it up, making of it a center and new beginning.

Of course I could be wrong here, and perhaps there is indeed no place for law and ethic in a post-human scientific world. I tend to see both possibilities as competing for the future. I would like to work toward actualizing the possibilities of the one over the other, for obvious reasons and because I tend to associate the latter with the total self-destruction and annihilation of the human being itself at the hands of the (unrestrained/unconditioned) scientific-technical paradigm. Interestingly there is nothing I can see about the ToE which tends it more toward one of these possibly futures rather than another. I wonder if you see it differently - what sort of future possibility, with respect to the vision/conscience of the human being that I outline above, or perhaps simply with respect to destructive vs creative-constructive, do you think is necessitated by your ToE, if any?

I sit at the edge of Socrates' cave, one hand in, one hand out, one eye in, one eye out (which btw can lead to horrendous headaches).

You swthrt, speak of widening the cave entrance such that light may enter, removing the protection so diligently sought by those within. I on the other hand, speak of a multitude of mirrors positioned in my right hand so as to reflect such illumination within the cave, that there is no shadow or doubt, no fear of what is without, for what is above is so all around. We both speak of change and illuminating the darkness. I just prefer less taking away of the protections enamored by hearts immersed in their fear.

But contemplation of the destination is merely distraction from paving the path.

James S Saint wrote:

I sit at the edge of Socrates' cave, one hand in, one hand out, one eye in, one eye out (which btw can lead to horrendous headaches).

You swthrt, speak of widening the cave entrance such that light may enter, removing the protection so diligently sought by those within. I on the other hand, speak of a multitude of mirrors positioned in my right hand so as to reflect such illumination within the cave, that there is no shadow or doubt, no fear of what is without, for what is above is so all around. We both speak of change and illuminating the darkness. I just prefer less taking away of the protections enamored by hearts immersed in their fear.

I am not familiar with the acronym or term "swthrt", was this a typo on your part?

I speak of more than widening the cave entrance. Perhaps you are intending to refer to Plato's analogy of the cave wall? Regardless what I speak of is highly pertinent, that we spend at least equal time contemplating the concerns related to ethics and practical possibilities of application and the implications of a ToE as we do actually developing and spreading the ToE itself unto humanity. This great truth would need much preparation, much laying of groundwork before it were revealed to mankind. This concept is well-known in occult circles, that generally speaking mankind must be wel prepared in advance of revolutionary discoveries and radical new possibilities. Knowledge in the wrong hands is terribly destructive, and often humanity itself is nothing more than a "wrong hands", until it has spent sufficient time contemplating and conceiving for itself a means to VALUE what has become a new tool in its hand.

The a-moral scientist cares not how his discoveries are to be used, he merely focuses on whether or not he can do what he conceives as possible. Discovery for its own sake, without appeal to conscience, possibile implication/s or ethics. This is dangerous and is one severe limit which mankind has yet to surpass. When man can conceive alongside his technical prowess and will to create a likewise ethical appeal to implication and likely outcome - when he can subordinate the will to truth to a higher ethic and law, which is to say to a philosophy of value - then and only then will science serve mankind.

Quote :

But contemplation of the destination is merely distraction from paving the path.

Absolutely not. Without such contemplation one cannot even be sure as to what path one is on, least of all where it is taking him.

Perhaps not, but I would think that your advice toward anyone would change depending on what you discovered actually worked or didn't work. Doesn't ethics depend at least to some degree on what will actually take place upon a given action? Or do you propose ethics that are absolute and regardless of all else?

Until you actually know the LoE (not the mere ToE), how would know what ethics to promote or be guided by?
And having learned the actual LoE, don't you supposed that it might have an effect upon what you chose to do?
If the proposed ToE, has no effect upon any activity, ethic, or decision, how could it be an LoE?

"I have in this book the answer to what should be done with anything. What pray tell should I do with it?"

Until you read it, what is the point of speculating?

Or perhaps if I put it this way;
"Hey, I have God Himself on the phone, what should I do?"
"Not to overstate the obvious, but why in this Hell are you asking Me? You're the one on the phone."

Additional thoughts..

Apparently long ago they thought they had the "God Formula" and from it presumptuously proceeded to do "the right thing". They created a "Garden of Eden", a "paradise". Within that paradise, they maintained the trees of the philosophies and constructed Ahdam so as to keep the garden. And they said, "this is good".

Now, I happen to also have the ToL, the "Theory of Life", which is not a theory concerning from whence life came, but rather the theory on exactly what it is and thus what absolutely must be done to maintain it as a whole or any instance of it ("Tree of Life"). But Ahdam, it seems, wasn't designed just right else the entire story of Ahdam and Eve would not have taken place. This indicates that either they didn't follow their formula properly, or it wasn't the real formula, merely a ToE, not The LoE.

I could be so presumptuous myself and also create and Ahdam and a Garden. But that is where I stop and ask, is that really the right thing to do. The real "God Formula", the "LoE", or even my ToE, must be consulted in order to answer that question. If I presume to already know that a Garden and an Ahdam are "the right thing", then I have committed the "original sin" all over again. To sin merely means to make an erroneous presumption, a moment of poor judgment.

So when it comes to "what shall we do with this knowledge", any step taken that is not inline with what the LoE would sustain as truly "good" or correctly designed in accord with the ToL, leads to the very trouble that the world already is in or some variation of it. What would be the point of that.

My point is that we cannot presume to assess and judge what is or isn't "good" or better. What works is what works, all else is what doesn't work, no matter how appealing it might seem.


And btw, your "Value-Ontology" is the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" - a philosophy distinguishing value, a ToV.
..but I also have that one in my lil bag.

James S Saint wrote:

Abstract wrote:

can you give an example of a "why"?
For example why is it that two different masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time?

Well, the simple reason for your question would be that if 2 masses were to be in the same location at the same time, they would be the same mass, merely twice as much of it. I could ask, "why can't 2 clouds be in the same place at the same time?"

But to get into the really deep understanding requires a far more serious education on exactly what "mass" really means. Science doesn't define it very exactly, thus RM doesn't use the term. But inertia is effectively the same thing and RM does use the concept of inertia. What we call "mass" is really a culmination of turbulent energy. Energy isn't a common term in RM either, but strongly relates to affectence. RM uses affectence, from affect, as its fundamental element of concern. Existence is affectence. Affectence then causes space, time, and all of the physical phenomena.

A very short and surprizing example of a why that Science apparently hasn't figured out yet is why it is that an electron doesn't go zipping into a proton and get annihilated. The surprising, yet provable answer is called "the weak force" in Science but is actually due to the fact that, believe it or not, the proton pushes it away out to its orbital radius. If it tries to leave its orbit, the proton will pull it back in, but will not allow it to get closer. Although I know exactly why it does that, which came as a stunning surprise to me, the whole thing is rather complex.

Contemporary physics has a few fundamental formula close to right, but not quite. One of those is the formula for charge and/mass attraction, Q1*Q2 / (4πε0r^2). That formula, as it turns out is very close to right as long as the particles are at a respectable distance. But when the particles get very close, that formula is too inaccurate to be used and doesn't really apply. A negative particle when approaching a positive particle of greater inertia, will in fact be repelled. The particle will end up maintaining a distant orbit as it cannot get closer nor further away and thus we have atoms. Without that repulsion, there would be no atoms and no molecules and thus no life to wonder why.

But my point is that the only reason you think that two clouds would be the same cloud or what have you when in the same place at the same time is because you exist and have grown up in a world that prevents you from contemplating an alternative mode of workings of things... alternative laws... In other words why do we have these laws and not some laws that say two things can be two totally different things and occupy the same place at the same time... sort of but not exactly like phasing or something...