What does it mean "to Exist"?

[JSS]

in view of the discovery of gravitational waves, it looks more and more as if the universe is made of something that has physical properties, that it is made of 'stuff' rather than just influences, or affectance, if you wish. It exists ontologically and not just epistemologically as you, and in fact Leo, albeit according to a different model, appear to imply.

How do you distinguish "stuff" or substance from influence or affectance?

The point is that there is no actual distinction. There is nothing to stuff other than affect or influence. If you take out the affect of it, there is no "it" left. It IS only the affecting within it.

[uwot]

How do you distinguish "stuff" or substance from influence or affectance?

Well, there's the Earth and there's its gravitational field. Both are 'real', but one is stuff, the other is affectance. Curiously, it is the stuff which is metaphysical.

[JSS]

How do you distinguish "stuff" or substance from influence or affectance?

Well, there's the Earth and there's its gravitational field. Both are 'real', but one is stuff, the other is affectance. Curiously, it is the stuff which is metaphysical.

Even more curiously and more to the exact point, is that the "stuff" is merely denser affectance. Concentrate affectance and it becomes a thing (on the smallest scale, literally a subatomic particle). There is nothing to "stuff" other than the affecting going on inside it and around it. It is only because the affecting is affecting the affecting, what we call "mass" emerges. There is nothing else there.

The Earth is no more than a very concentrated gravity/mass/affectance field (in the form of tiny particles) surrounded by a far less concentrated field.

[Obvious Leo]

JSS. If you swap your word affectance for my Planck informational quanta we're basically saying the same thing except my quanta are physical and the particles emerge as a function of the way they affect each other. The crucial point to my story is that all this is happening only in a fractal continuum of time and gravity and not in a manifold of time and space. Your affectance idea makes no distinction between reality as it is and reality as it is observed to be so what prediction would it yield which would differ from that of the current models? Ultimately this is the gold standard for any new idea.

Well, there's the Earth and there's its gravitational field. Both are 'real',

No. A "field" is purely an epistemic construct. Gravity is real but a gravitational field is not real.

The Earth is no more than a very concentrated gravity/mass/affectance field (in the form of tiny particles) surrounded by a far less concentrated field.

What is the nature of these undefined particles? What are they?

[Dubious]

No. A "field" is purely an epistemic construct. Gravity is real but a gravitational field is not real.

That's equivalent to saying magnetism is real but a magnetic field is not real...or electricity is real but an electric field is not real therefore an EM field cannot be real either. If these aren't real then they cannot affect anything but now it's determined that even gravitational waves are real because of their effect on instruments sensitive enough to detect them.

[Obvious Leo]

No. A "field" is purely an epistemic construct. Gravity is real but a gravitational field is not real.

That's equivalent to saying magnetism is real but a magnetic field is not real...or electricity is real but an electric field is not real therefore an EM field cannot be real either. If these aren't real then they cannot affect anything but now it's determined that even gravitational waves are real because of their effect on instruments sensitive enough to detect them.

Nonsense. You're simply getting cause and effect back to front. Are you seriously claiming that electromagnetism is what causes particles to have a charge? This proposition is both illogical and non-mechanical because it's the other way around. It is the fact that particles have a charge which produces the effect which the observer defines as electromagnetism. The same principle applies to the other "fundamental forces" which physics have invented to model their observations. This is well understood even in the flawed Standard Model where the mechanics of these forces are modelled in terms of particle exchange. However it has been known for a century that such modelling cannot be used to model gravity because gravity is not a "force". Gravity is a fundamental property of the universe which gives rise to all these various "forces". There can be no Grand Unified Theory until this is understood and this can never be understood within the framework of the Standard Model because this model assumes the "flat space" of SR, which is a space where gravity is ABSENT.

This is what all the fuss is about, Dubious. This is why QM and GR are mutually exclusive.

[JSS]

JSS. If you swap your word affectance for my Planck informational quanta we're basically saying the same thing except my quanta are physical and the particles emerge as a function of the way they affect each other. The crucial point to my story is that all this is happening only in a fractal continuum of time and gravity and not in a manifold of time and space.

Yeah, but my Affectance is provably real and has no lower minimal size.

Your affectance idea makes no distinction between reality as it is and reality as it is observed to be so what prediction would it yield which would differ from that of the current models? Ultimately this is the gold standard for any new idea.

Affectance unifies what has already been observed. It explains what has already been seen and is rationally a provable undeniable fact. But as things get seen by physicists, they invent all kinds of their own explanations using fancy new particles that have never been seen, merely speculated. To a quantum physicist, every particle is made of other particles, every field is made of virtual particles, "quanta". Affectance explains that actually the reverse is true. What we call a "particle" is merely a cluster of ultra-minuscule EMR noise that is highly concentrated as its inside with extremely low concentration as its outside (gravity/mass field).

Quantum Mechanics is merely a tool to deal with averages and probabilities. It is NOT a valid ontology of what is really there individually. And including all of the mythical particles, it is simply a fantasy.

Well, there's the Earth and there's its gravitational field. Both are 'real',

No. A "field" is purely an epistemic construct. Gravity is real but a gravitational field is not real.

There is the effect called "gravity" that can be said to be epistemological, but there is also that physically existent field associated with that effect, a "mass field" or "gravitational field", that is a true ontological element. That field is just a relatively low concentration of affectance - a "stuff" made of a very specific behavior.

The Earth is no more than a very concentrated gravity/mass/affectance field (in the form of tiny particles) surrounded by a far less concentrated field.

What is the nature of these undefined particles? What are they?

??? Those are the normal subatomic particles everyone recognizes; electrons, protons, neutrons,... (but not fantasy charmingly friendly and colorful quarks).

[uwot]

..."stuff" is merely denser affectance.

Well, unless affectance has substantial or material properties, you are talking about 'spooky action at a distance'; magic, if you will.

A "field" is purely an epistemic construct. Gravity is real but a gravitational field is not real.

According to JSS, matter is concentrated epistemology.

[JSS]

..."stuff" is merely denser affectance.

Well, unless affectance has substantial or material properties, you are talking about 'spooky action at a distance'; magic, if you will.

No, not at all. As I noted earlier, you are thinking in specific terms that happen to turn out to be a bit backwards. The hard-stuff is made only of concentrated soft-stuff. And on the lowest level imaginable, there would appear to be no stuff at all, but in fact, it is merely infinitely thinned soft-stuff - "Affectance". Particles are made of nothing but ultra-minuscule EMR noise, Affectance. But the field surrounding them is made of the same stuff, merely much thinner.

A "field" is purely an epistemic construct. Gravity is real but a gravitational field is not real.

According to JSS, matter is concentrated epistemology.

"Epistemology" is the study of the composition and acquisition of knowledge. It really doesn't belong in this topic. Ontology is the study of existence, of what it is made. Gravity is a behavior and has a field of that behavioral effect, called a "gravity field". Both of those are ontological concerns. It really doesn't have anything to do with epistemology.

[uwot]

The hard-stuff is made only of concentrated soft-stuff. And on the lowest level imaginable, there would appear to be no stuff at all, but in fact, it is merely infinitely thinned soft-stuff - "Affectance". Particles are made of nothing but ultra-minuscule EMR noise, Affectance. But the field surrounding them is made of the same stuff, merely much thinner.

Right, so 'affectance' is actually 'stuff',

"Epistemology" is the study of the composition and acquisition of knowledge. It really doesn't belong in this topic. Ontology is the study of existence, of what it is made. Gravity is a behavior and has a field of that behavioral effect, called a "gravity field". Both of those are ontological concerns. It really doesn't have anything to do with epistemology.

If you don't understand Newton's general scholium, and in particular 'hypotheses non fingo', you are not really in a position to lecture on epistemology to people that do.

[Obvious Leo]

JSS. You seem to be ignoring a host of inconvenient facts in your model. That matter can be infinitely divisible is a logical absurdity and the origin of the properties of the subatomic particles remains unexplained. Where does time fit into the story is also a question which springs to mind because no statement can be made about gravity which is not also a statement about time. The affectance idea is inelegant but not foolish by any means but it seems to me to be just as non-mechanical as the quantum field theory which you so justly ridicule. Why is yours not just another "ontology of equations"?

[Dubious]

No. A "field" is purely an epistemic construct. Gravity is real but a gravitational field is not real.

That's equivalent to saying magnetism is real but a magnetic field is not real...or electricity is real but an electric field is not real therefore an EM field cannot be real either. If these aren't real then they cannot affect anything but now it's determined that even gravitational waves are real because of their effect on instruments sensitive enough to detect them.

Nonsense. You're simply getting cause and effect back to front. Are you seriously claiming that electromagnetism is what causes particles to have a charge?

I made no such inference. My point was exactly as specified. If a "field" is a purely epistemic concept, it follows that any "field" likewise must be epistemic which makes no sense and has no application when discussing "fields"...at least, not according to any definition of epistemic.

This has nothing to do with anyone's theories, probable or not. It's got everything to do with conflating philosophy with science which is of no service to either unless terms are properly defined and understood. Equating "epistemic" as understood with "fields" as understood yields one of those contradictions guaranteed to be misunderstood.

[Obvious Leo]

It's got everything to do with conflating philosophy with science

How the hell can science be done without philosophy? Surely being able to distinguish between what's real and what isn't real should be germane to the scientific method.

[Dubious]

It's got everything to do with conflating philosophy with science

How the hell can science be done without philosophy? Surely being able to distinguish between what's real and what isn't real should be germane to the scientific method.

You still haven't responded to how "epistemic" a term used much more in philosophy than science applies to "fields" which pertains much more to science than philosophy. As to how science can be done without philosophy is simple. The scientific method was established somewhat late in our history precisely to leave philosophy and religion out of it, endorsed instead by experimentation, observation and not least, imagination. Whereas physicists like Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and contemporaries like Penrose can indeed be philosophers, especially philosophers of science, they can separate the two disciplines knowing well that occasional "mergers" between them can be fruitful. But that would be the extent of it. They talk either philosophy or science. They don't use one to explain the other except through analogies.

[JSS]

JSS. You seem to be ignoring a host of inconvenient facts in your model.

I have litle doubt that the reverse is far more true.

That matter can be infinitely divisible is a logical absurdity

You keep saying that yet provide none of the logic required to substantiate the claim. As I have told you before, you are attempting to [still] defend an indefensible position.

and the origin of the properties of the subatomic particles remains unexplained.

Well certainly as long as you keep ignoring any explanation on absurd unsupportable grounds, you are not going to see any explanation. But that will never mean that it wasn't there.

Where does time fit into the story is also a question which springs to mind because no statement can be made about gravity which is not also a statement about time.

That is something that you have been convinced is true, yet you have no proof that it is. I happen to know that it is true, but I know WHY it must be true. But then you want gravity to be spoken of even before time .. why?

Affect directly implies time already. To affect means to cause change. Time is merely a relative measure of such changing. Merely by saying "affect", I have inherently included time. Gravity on the other hand emerges through a complexity involving a gradient in density of affects upon affects.

As it turns out, due to density of affectance, time and a gravity field are very related, just as GR indicates. But a gravity field is a gradient of affectance density. The field is "thicker", more dense, closer to the central mass. It is that [ontological] density that causes the time measurement effects, not the gradient slope. But gravitation is due to the slope, the gradient of the affectance/mass field. And that can be explained in extreme detail. This just isn't the thread for that.

The affectance idea is inelegant but not foolish by any means but it seems to me to be just as non-mechanical as the quantum field theory which you so justly ridicule. Why is yours not just another "ontology of equations"?

"in-elegant"?? Not really, but you have only begun to scratch the surface. The Affectance concept could not get more elegant once you clear up the confusions of which you have been taught.

The equation for literally every point throughout all space is simply:
Exyz = p + a0dp/dt + a1dp²/dt² + a3dp³/dt³ + …

Or:


All physical behavior arises from that one equation (properly applied).

As to how science can be done without philosophy is simple. The scientific method was established somewhat late in our history precisely to leave philosophy and religion out of it, endorsed instead by experimentation, observation and not least, imagination.

No, no, no. Science was developed much the same way as Christianity. They were both pushed forward and insisted upon so as to stop any OTHER philosophy.

Science is merely one philosophy being applied. A good one, but still merely a philosophy: the "try it and see" philosophy.

But as such, the philosophy that we call the "Scientific Method" can only verify philosophical hypotheses. Science knows nothing of truth, only of verification through demonstration that something isn't provably wrong. Science can never prove a truth on its own, only a falsehood.