Rational Metaphysics: Standard Infinitesimal

EugeneMorrow wrote:How many points are then in one inch and two inches? As many as you want. Everyone knows that. How many points are then in InfA? As many as you want. That's the problem for RM.

That has been a problem for mathematics and Science, but it isn't a problem for RM because RM addresses and fixes that problem.

What does "God" mean? "Whatever you want it to mean."
Why does the universe exist? "Whatever reason you want."
What do you call the things that atoms are made of? "Whatever you want to call them."
What is an elemental wave? "Whatever you want it to be."

That is how you keep a society ignorant and backwards. Establishing a standard is critical for making progress.

How many points are in a 1 inch line? "As many you want."
Well, that part is true. You are free to set the number of points that you "want" to deal with... once. But of course, if you are using logic, you are not free to then change that number as you go. Since a 2 inch line is already defined by being twice as long as a 1 inch line, you are no longer free to just choose as many points as you want. Otherwise logic and math become useless and anything else you say after that point is truly meaningless.

So if you say that there are going to be 1 million points in a 1 inch line, then you are stuck with having 2 million in a 2 inch line, else why bother even talking about it.

But now if you declare that there are an infinite number of points in a 1 inch line, then in keeping with logic and math, there must be 2 times that many in a 2 inch line, "2 * inf". And that is where current mathematics leaves the room, because current mathematics doesn't define what "2 * inf" mean other than to say that it is "still infinite/boundless". Thus in math, 2 * inf = inf, which of course, using math, "(2 *inf) / inf = 1" which violates the rules of math. You can't use current mathematics with an infinite number of points and make any headway.

Thus in RM, you are to set a standard of interest perhaps saying that a 1 inch line has an infinite number of points, thus establishing an "infinitesimal". And that standard is to be named " infA". Now you can know that a 2 inch line has 2 * infA points and "(2 *infA) / infA = 2". Thus both logic and math are still useful... because you set a standard.

How long is one second? "As long as you want"? Well, that doesn't help anyone and forbids reasoning. Thus a standard is set. "How do you know that they got it right? Maybe what they set isn't really how long a second is." It is whatever they set it to be, end of story.

---------------------------------

This issue comes into play when dealing with the concern of propagation which is a measure using both time and distance. Both time and distance must have a standard set so as to allow reasoning and progress. And when it comes to the infinitesimal issues of both time and distance, a standard must be set for each, as neither are directly related to the other (yet).

So without a formal standard already being set, one is free to choose a standard and then stick to it, for time and also distance. I am free to say that 1 second has infA points of time in it. And I am still free to pick any standard for the number of points in a 1 inch line. As explained before, no matter what standard I choose for the distance infinitesimal, I will have immediately affixed a ratio between time and distance infinitesimal measurements.

So in RM, I chose that they be the same standard so that the ratio will be simply 1, "infAt / infAd = 1", by definition.

Once that is chosen, it is no longer, "as long as you want". And the relation between time and distance measurements are no longer, "whatever you want". Then by merely choosing a name for each unit to represent that standard we have;

1 tic / 1 toe = 1, by definition.

And as explained before that ratio could have been chosen as anything. But as long as it is chosen and defined, there will always be a fixed ratio between time and distance. That fixed ratio is what allows for propagation to have meaningful, "rational" measure.

Of course you are right in that if you allow anything to just mean "anything you want", then there is no point in discussing anything or attempting to reason. But then that would apply to your TEW and QM as well. QM set many standards so as to make the progress it made, as did all of Science.

----------------------

Now, since we are dealing with infinitesimal steps in both time and distance, we know the ratio of those infinitesimals.
If the smallest distance is achieved in the shortest time, it occurred at a rate of 1 toe/tic.

EugeneMorrow wrote:RM declares that 1 toe/tic is the maximum rate of change. Why isn't that value the minimum? Why isn't that value the average? Why is there a maximum rate?

The reason that it is the maximum and not the minimum is because it refers to the ratio of the smallest and shortest possible for each unit. If 1 toe distance is achieved, by definition it took infA steps to do it. And in infA steps, by definition 1 tic would have been achieved. If you achieved N toes in distance, by definition it took N*infA steps in both time and distance.

Thus you cannot get a ratio greater than 1. But if you are slowed for some reason, you might not achieve 1 toe in distance during 1 tic, and thus the achieved propagation could be less than 1, but never greater.

Unless you want to use an ontology wherein the laws of physics are arbitrary and change from one point in space to another, the ratio between your units of measure must remain affixed throughout all space. What would be the point in trying to measure something if the next time you measure it, perhaps in a different location, it is going to be arbitrarily different? There would be no point in having an ontology or Science. You are free to set such ratios once, but then throughout all future calculations, that ratio must remain the same.

Rational Metaphysics:Affectance Ontology

Rational Metaphysics is an ontology built upon Definitional Logic that explains existence thusly;

Physical existence is defined by the property of degree of affect upon degree of affect. Every point in space is a Potential-to-Affect, "PtA". Every PtA is affecting the PtA immediately surrounding it such as to alter the amount of potential at those points in space. But it is logically and physically impossible for those points to ever become homogeneously equal. Thus space is always changing its PtA throughout the entire universe.

That changing is called "Affectance" and is the substance of the physical universe of which everything in the universe is made. And is also the situation from which all true laws of physics are formed. The objects in space such as particles are clusters of that changing. And all properties of all materials and forces are derived by the consequences of such affectance.

To date, all of the observations of contemporary physics have been explained by Rational Metaphysics, "RM", without presuming any of the laws of classical or quantum physics. The foundation of RM is conceptual definitions followed by consequential logic and can be verified by empirical observation (Science).

Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

The logic of Rational Metaphysics begins with the premise that what has no affect is irrelevant and meaningless. If something has no affect, it cannot be felt by anything nor change anything in any way. Thus from the state of absolute nothingness, affectance is the first and only relevant concern. That is the first step, the premise of all rational thought.

From realizing that affectance (that which has affect, whatever that might be) can only affect by altering something else that has affect, other existence, we can see that it can only increase or decrease the affect of the other, because degree of affect is all there is.

But that sets up the scenario that everything must be merely made of mutual affect, "affectance". As it turns out, that is the same as what Science calls "energy"; the ability to "do work" or "cause change"; to affect.

But then we add the realization that infinity, by definition, is not physically achievable. Thus infinite difference of affect cannot exist in any form. With that idea, we can see that no two items of affectance can have infinite affect upon each other. Also, we can realize that no affect can occur instantly because that would be an infinite rate of affect and would merely mean that there was not actually two items, but one. And of course any affect taking an infinite amount of time would not actually be having affect. Thus for it to be called affect, it must occur within finite time, neither zero nor infinite.

We can realize that infinite homogeneity cannot exist either, because that would mean that all points are infinitely identical. Infinite similarity between any two points cannot exist for any length of time either, if for no other reason, merely because every point is changing.

So now with those thoughts in mind, we can deduce that affect occurs in waves wherein there are no points of affectance that can be infinitely different than any adjacent point, or from any other point. Thus a conclusion can be formed; a singularity (an infinitely small and solitary point of affect) cannot ever exist. It would have nothing to exist relative to, nothing to affect and be affected by. And any single infinitely small point of affect would have to immediately be affected and have affect upon its surroundings, thus melting into them with no significantly more potential to affect than they.

But we can go further.

What all this means is that it is logically impossible for space to have ever been a nothingness of infinite similarity and also that there could never have been a singularity that exploded into our observed universe. Logically, the Big Bang theory of original creation cannot be true. But that is not to say that there wasn't some kind of explosion long ago.

Still further, we can realize that what we call "space" has no logical option but to be waves of affectance, never identically uniform and never infinitely dissimilar. The entire universe must be an ocean of motion of affectance waves. So even when we see nothing, we can know that there is always something there and that something, the affectance, is changing at finite speeds.

So if affectance changes at a finite speed, what would that speed be? It would be the speed from which all other speed is measured for it is the speed of affect, the only absolute speed logically possible. If affectance is all there is, there is nothing to impede that speed of affectance except the affectance itself; each point of affect attempting to affect what is affect itself; affect slowing affect as each point mutually affects each other.

So now we have;
1) Affectance is the only existence
2) Infinity cannot ever be physically realized
3) Nothingness can never occur or ever have occurred
4) Nothing can be infinitely different nor similar to anything else
5) Affectance occurs at finite speed (turning out to be the "speed of light")

But then we can also realize that what we call near and far is merely the observation of direct affect versus indirect affect. That which is directly affected, is what is "near" and what is indirectly affected is "far", by definition.

So one point of affect affects the next points adjacent to it directly. And that point directly affects the next point to that one and so on. By such definitions, we have spatial dimensions and volume.

Every point of affect must affect the adjacent points else it would not exist to them, thus every point affects every other point either directly or indirectly without exception and they must do so in finite time. There can be no other fundamental existence.

What that reveals is that any speculation of a fourth dimension requires that the points associated with it must be affected and more importantly, that they must affect the points associated with the first three dimensions.

We derived our three dimensions merely by seeing that affect can be segregated into three independent directions. We chose that there be three for our convenience. Thus there is no fourth dimension else the affect of that direction would be included in all affect.

6) There are only 3 spatial dimensions, by definition (not observation).

As each point of affect is affected and itself affects the next point. A propagation of affect is described. Waves of affect are realized.

7) Affect propagates in waves that cannot occur faster than the speed of affect.

Since the speed of affect is the absolute base for all speed, nothing can travel faster. Thus if a wave were to, for whatever reason, come into a spin wherein it was chasing its own tail (similar to a bicycle wheel spinning and also tumbling), the bundle of affectance wave (a "particle") could not remain a bundle and also travel as a bundle linearly at the speed of affect. It could not because such a scenario would require that the center of the bundle be traveling at the speed of affect and also some part of the spinning affectance wave inside the bundle be traveling faster than that center, else there would be no spinning and thus no bundle. But that would mean that some part of the wave had to travel faster than affect can travel, which is a logical impossibility.

It is for that reason, a bundle of spinning affect (a particle) cannot ever travel at the maximum speed of affect and anything trying to push it, would encounter logical resistance; inertia. There need be no other force providing resistance. And the faster the particle is pushed, the more impossible it becomes to make it travel any faster. Hence, "no object can travel at the speed of affect (light)".

8) Inertial particles are caused by the clustering of waves of affect thus resisting further affect; becoming firm; material; matter.

Thus from the notion of nothingness, energy and matter are realized because there can be no logical alternative.