James S. Saint wrote:
»Taking your example of a woman, who's way to dress I might
regard as »whorish«. If my perception of her gets influenced
through media, other people or whatever, who are all telling me that
the way she dresses is a fashion now, the latest trend and a must
for all modern women who look after themselves, and I can see now
lots of women dressed up like this, my whole attitude might change
due to this manipulation, given that it's easy to influence me. So
my perception of something bad changes to a perception
of something good (or from negative to positive). I've
learned that a particle cannot just change it's charge. How do you
explain this change of PHT-values?« **
Although a valid and understandable question to ask, it poses a significant
number of physics and philosophy issues to be addressed. The first of
which is the philosophical issue of Theseus Ship - at what point
of substitution do we say that it is a different ship?
To convert and electron into a positron, you would first have to
remove the negativity of the electron. That would require that you obtain
the technology to actually hold an electron in place while you manipulate
it .. not currently possible. But even with that technology provided,
an electron is made of nothing but negativity. Removing all of the negativity
leaves absolutely nothing, no empty shape or form to be filled, but
simply nothing at all. A positron can then be either created or more
simply just moved into the former electrons position. Then you
could say that you "converted" the electron to a positron.
But more likely, you are going to say that you simply replaced the electron
after destroying it. It is actually just a matter of semantics, as is
But perhaps the more relevant issue involves the sizes of the kinds
of things we have been discussing.
When I used a woman as something from which a propagation of PHT
might occur, I was very, very far from referring to a »subatomic
particle«. The word »particle« merely refers to anything
very tiny, but in the realm of physics, a »subatomic particle«
is not merely tiny, but ultra, extremely tiny and more importantly,
the smallest possible physical stable form. And as tiny as women might
get, they very, very seriously come no where close to the smallest or
simplest stable entities within the construct of perception.
The human eye can see something about 0.1 millimeters width (10^-4
meters). An atom, and all atoms are roughly the same size, is about
10^-10 meters, 0.0000000001 meters. That is a difference of about one
MILLION times smaller than a human eye could see. But guess what. A
proton subatomic particle is roughly 100,000 times smaller than that
at about 10^15 meters. But it doesn't end there. An electron is roughly
1000 times smaller than that at 10^18 meters - 0.000000000000000001m.
That puts the electron and positron particles at roughly one MILLION
times smaller than one MILLION times smaller than anything the human
eye could ever see. The human mind cannot fathom such a range of size.
And such is the case when it comes to the most fundamental, nearly nonconvertible,
»particles« of PHT.
A single atom is made of many subatomic particles so far distant
from each other than if you could actually see one electron, you could
not see the orbited nucleus that is 1000 times larger because it would
be 50,000 times further away. Molecules are then formed by atoms being
fairly close together yet forming molecule chains anywhere from just
a couple to trillions of atoms long. And from those are formed cells
that are 10,000 times larger. And from trillions of those, is formed
a woman. The difference in size and complexity is unfathomable.
The point is that the normal objects of perceived value, such as
that woman, are invariably extremely complex combinations of much, much
smaller intuitive PHT concerns, so small as to be undetectable by the
conscious mind. They exist in the realm of the »subconscious«
and even »unconscious« mind and are usually referred to
a »an intuitive sense«. So whether the »subatomic«
form of PHT particle could be converted is seriously irrelevant because
there is nothing your conscious mind could perceive that comes anywhere
close to being the most fundamental impetus for PHT evaluation. And
that means that pretty much anything that you can perceive can be converted
from a positive to negative PHT perception or vsvrsa. Smelly ugly things
can become alluring attractive things ... or vsvrsa. It is all a matter
of proper programming.
Reversing the PHT charge of most concerns would be about like reversing
the static charge of a Van De Graaff generator. The reverse charged
particles or waves must be pumped toward the object while the formers
are pumped away. Such is referred to as a »catharsis«, flooding
the mind with a particular »charge«. **
Maybe Mithus wants to compare that change of PHT-values
with a decay like the following one: After about 10.25 minutes a neutron
(neutral charge) decays into a proton (positive charge),
an electron (negative charge) and an antineutrino (no charge).
Would you (**)
agree, if someone obejectively said that you were a subjectivist?
And what do you mean by accomodate people (**)
James S. Saint wrote:
The intent of my last post was to express that one cannot compare
the perception of a human with the behavior of a subatomic particle.
Although one can compare such a perception with an amount of charge
that, when very stable, can be thought of as a »particle that
is charged«, like a charged spec of dust, just not subatomic because
subatomic particles have no substructure like a nervous system interfering
with their dynamics. The mind is still built upon and sensitive to its
physical biochemical substrate, the brain, thus its perceptions are
never as pure as physical subatomic particles. **
I agree, because I also think that perceptions are never as pure
as physical subatomic particle, that it is not possible or at least
quite difficult and also quite useless to compare the perception
of a human with the behavior of a subatomic particle. But the point
Mithus made could be the change from positive to negative
and vice versa, from neutral to positive or neagtive
and vice versa, regardless whether subatomic particles behave in the same
way or not, and if they do, then the comparison is useful, and if they
do not do, then the comparison is useless.
James S. Saint wrote:
Beyond that, one must be careful when speaking Quantum Particle
Physics Ontology. The word »particle« in quantum physics
is no more than a number used to account for an amount of something
otherwise unaccounted for, much like the square root of a negative number
- purely imaginary.
A neutrino is an actual physical particle, much like an electron void
of charge. But an »anti-neutrino« is not an actual particle
at all, not really even a virtual particle. The idea of »anti-neutrino«
refers to a neutrino amount of energy that is missing from the surrounding
environment. But quantum theory physicists do not like to refer to anything
except as a »particle«, a quanta (in their mathematics).
A proton is at a lower entropy than a neutron. It has more energy
than a neutron. So for them to say that a neutron »decays«
into a proton, is another misuse of the language (they seem to love
doing that - semantics). When a neutron becomes a proton, it absorbs
a positron worth of charge and a neutrino amount of mass. So in Quantum
Physics Ontology, there is a missing amount of charge and mass from
the surrounding universe. So to call out the missing amount of positive
charge, the same amount of negative charge is claimed to be generated
into the universe from the change, an »electron«. And to
call out the amount of missing mass, a »negative-mass« particle,
an anti-neutrino is claimed. Neither the electron, nor the negative-mass
particle physically exist as real particles. They are merely referred
to as »particles« so as to account for the amount of missing
charge and mass energy. An objective in Quantum Physics is to ensure
that in all things, there is a zero-sum.
It is a little dangerous to the mind to casually step in and out of
different ontologies (language issues and thus logic issues arise),
especially ontologies that are incomplete, such as Quantum Physics and
Quantum Physics and Relativity are not complete, yes.
James S. Saint wrote:
»If you have read my posts on Affectance Ontology, then no
doubt you have read me say that AO is a true Unified Field Theory,
UFT, and Grand Unified Theory, GUT. The exact same principles
from AO apply to literally ALL sciences; physics, psychology, politics,
economics ....« **
Yes, but for people like me, who are not familiar with Physics, it can
become difficult to translate it all into the language of Psychology.
In your ontology you wrote that »there is a limit to the rate
of adding affects/influences, when affects merge in such a way as to
require more than an infinite change rate, a maximum change rate point,
MCR point, forms and as the participating affects continue to attempt
adding at the same location, any additional followup propagating affects
must wait for time to pass. - Inertia.«
I understand that this is the precondition for the forming of a particle,
or, in other words, »the mass particle of the spirit«. What
equals this MCR point in Psychology, which causes a delay of further
influences? I imagine something like a sensory overload, which has an
inhibiting effect to the receptivity of the mind, so that the mind has
to filter out useful from useless information, in order to form an understanding.
But that might be completely wrong. Sorry, if I confuse this all.
What could or should the analogy of the sensory be?
It is very plausible to have an hierarchical structure of several realms,
so that it is not always possible to compare them with each other. An
example is the brain: this biological (neurological) organ has no analogy
in physics, because physics as such (as well as chemistry as such) does
not belong to that organic realm. The level of the organic realm is higher
than the inorganic realm, although the inorganic realm determines the
organic realm. This means in the case of the brain example that the brain
does not only exist of parts of the organic realm, cells for example,
but also of parts of the inorganic realm, molecules and atoms for example.
So when it comes to the inorganic realm, it is difficult to find an
analogy to the brain as a part of the organic realm. If you said that
the sun is the »brain« of the solar system (or the planetary
system), then this would be true only in a metaphorical
sense. But if you said that the brain (or the heart) is the »sun«
of the organism, then this would be true not only in
a metaphorical but also in a more ontological, a more real sense.
And if it is difficult to find an analogy to the organic realm in the
inorganic realm, then it is even more difficult to find an analogy to
the psycho-/sociological realm, not only because of the fact that you
have to find an analogy to the psycho-/sociological realm in both the
inorganic realm and the organic realm.
Back to the topic (**|**):
My philosophy has fundamentals that can empirically
also be found in nature, a.k.a the universe, and theoretically also be
found in cosmology and geology: (1) actualism, (2) exceptionalism, (3)
cataclysm, (4) cyclicism.
I am celebrating my third ILP-birthday.