Measuring Existence

[JSS]

By ontological declaration of definition, all existence is formed of affectance for the rationale expressed here: Metaphysics. So the immediate question arises as to how we can know more about this affectance and thus the existence surrounding us. How can we measure affectance in all of its potential forms?

The first thing to know about affectance beyond the fact that it is existence, is that nothing can be affected by anything that isn't in direct contact with it. We never see or sense anything directly. It is our consciousness that allows for us to project an image of what is probably still out there shining that light at us, "remote recognition".

Thus our minds have to calculate and guess at what it WAS that threw an affect our way. And in fact, whatever it WAS, it might not still be there by the time we are affected by whatever it had broadcast. We are never affected by the remote thing itself, merely by the chain of affects stemming from it.

The news/information media is used expressly to serve such a purpose. We are never affected by the actual events that take place across the world, but rather by what is broadcast to us by a media service. And then of course such is used to manipulate what and who we are to love and hate.

Time and Distance
In fact what we call "distance" is merely our perception of the number of points being affected between A and B. That is first an issue of declared definition, but also happens to be how our instinctive mind works. We perceive and map one thing being close or far from another by how much "space" there is between the two. That "space" is no more than a number of points to potentially be affected in series.

Time ≡ the measure of relative change or affect
Distance ≡ a measure of directness of affect

Density
The concept of density is about how much of something is within a given space. Affectance density is how much affecting or changing is happening within a given space. And that is why both time and distance are directly related to affectance density.

Time is a measure of how much relative affecting there is going on between two things (not necessarily that either is affecting the other) and distance is a measure of how many points can get affected in a direct line series between two things. If you increase the amount of affecting in a given space (increasing the affectance density/mass density), from an outside observation all objects within that space will be shorter and moving slower. Both time and distance are issues of affectance density. What is known as General Relativity is merely the mathematical way of expressing that issue.

And as was such an interesting find long ago, our measuring effort is itself affected by our own ambient affectance density. As we enter a stronger gravity (a more dense affectance field) we too become smaller and slower. Thus our measuring devises and senses automatically compensate such as to measure other objects that have entered with us to not have changed at all. Someone staying out of the increased field, would observe both us and the objects shrinking and slowing.

Thus the measures using time and distance are affected by the relative affectance density between the measuring devises or senses and the objects or events being measured. And it is actually by declared ontological definitions that the General Relativity "theory" is necessarily true, not merely a speculation.

That is why general relativity mathematically works.

General Relativity in concept and as it pertains to measuring time and distance related events and objects is an ontological fact, not an empirical speculation. Although the exact equations with their speculated constants is another issue.

[Harbal]

The first thing to know about affectance beyond the fact that it is existence, is that nothing can be affected by anything that isn't in direct contact with it

Rubbish.

[JSS]

The first thing to know about affectance beyond the fact that it is existence, is that nothing can be affected by anything that isn't in direct contact with it

Rubbish.

You are welcome to explain your contrary rubbish.

[Harbal]

You are welcome to explain your contrary rubbish.

The fact that you responded to my post shows that I have affected you but I am not in direct contact with you.

[JSS]

You are welcome to explain your contrary rubbish.

The fact that you responded to my post shows that I have affected you but I am not in direct contact with you.

And you don't think that the computer you typed on had anything to do with it?

[Harbal]

And you don't think that the computer you typed on had anything to do with it?

My computer isn't in direct contact with you, either. The fact is, I did something which affected you. What difference does it make how many links there are in the chain of events which, ultimately, caused you to act?

[JSS]

And you don't think that the computer you typed on had anything to do with it?

My computer isn't in direct contact with you, either. The fact is, I did something which affected you. What difference does it make how many links there are in the chain of events which, ultimately, caused you to act?

What difference was explained in the OP.

What we call "distance" is measured by the points of separation of direct affect. You affected your computer. Your computer affected the internet. The internet affected my computer. My computer sprayed light at me. That light affected me.

The more of those steps that you take out, the "closer" we are. Break the chain, and the affect that you had on your computer might still be, but that computer doesn't affect the internet or the internet does affect my computer or my computer doesn't spray the light that affected me. You did the same, but it was never you that affected me, only the last element in the chain.

What is called the "media" is called that because it stands as the medium between all people solely for the purpose of adjusting who can affect whom and in which way. The same with medicine, the medium between you and your physical health.

Everything that affects you must come from a medium between you and all else. Nothing else can touch you.

[surreptitious57]

Everything that affects you must come from a medium between you and all else. Nothing else can touch you

Your emotions affect you and they do not come from an external medium but from directly inside your brain

[JSS]

Everything that affects you must come from a medium between you and all else. Nothing else can touch you

Your emotions affect you and they do not come from an external medium but from directly inside your brain

If you are going to separate your emotions or your body or your smile from "you", then there is going to be a border between you and those things. There can never be two distinct things without a border between. You can only be affected by the border between you and whatever you have distinguished from you. The border between is the "media" by which you get affected.

[Harbal]

What we call "distance" is measured by the points of separation of direct affect. You affected your computer. Your computer affected the internet. The internet affected my computer. My computer sprayed light at me. That light affected me.

The more of those steps that you take out, the "closer" we are. Break the chain, and the affect that you had on your computer might still be, but that computer doesn't affect the internet or the internet does affect my computer or my computer doesn't spray the light that affected me. You did the same, but it was never you that affected me, only the last element in the chain.

What is called the "media" is called that because it stands as the medium between all people solely for the purpose of adjusting who can affect whom and in which way. The same with medicine, the medium between you and your physical health.

Everything that affects you must come from a medium between you and all else. Nothing else can touch you.

So if a link in the chain breaks I cease to exist?

[JSS]

So if a link in the chain breaks I cease to exist?

To me at the time, yes. And if you don't affect anything at all and nothing affects you at all, then yes, you do not exist at all.

[Harbal]

To me at the time, yes. And if you don't affect anything at all and nothing affects you at all, then yes, you do not exist at all.

Good god! I didn't realise my presence here was so tenuous.

[Walker]

So if a link in the chain breaks I cease to exist?

To me at the time, yes. And if you don't affect anything at all and nothing affects you at all, then yes, you do not exist at all.

The affectation required for existence is simply “awareness of.”

When you are aware but not aware of any particular person, place, thing or thought (emotion), then you don’t exist.

“You exist only in relationship; otherwise you do not exist, existence has no meaning. It is not because you think you are that you come into existence.”
- Jiddu Krishnamurti

*

Existence (from Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

2a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds>

Interesting definition.

Krishnamurti is saying that a hearer is required for sound to exist.
Merriam-Webster is saying no hearer is required for sound to exist.

[JSS]

So if a link in the chain breaks I cease to exist?

To me at the time, yes. And if you don't affect anything at all and nothing affects you at all, then yes, you do not exist at all.

The affectation required for existence is simply “awareness of.”

When you are aware but not aware of any particular person, place, thing or thought (emotion), then you don’t exist.

No, being aware of an affect is not relevant to whether it exists. The example that Harbal raised involved me being aware of him as theoretical proof that he affected me. But awareness is not relevant to anything other than being able to convince anyone of something.

“You exist only in relationship; otherwise you do not exist, existence has no meaning. It is not because you think you are that you come into existence.”
- Jiddu Krishnamurti

That is relevant. Ancient Hindu and Chinese writings indicate that they already knew the kind of thing that I am saying. The difference is that I can prove it in far more detail both logically and empirically. They used to say (and probably still do) that only spirit is real, material is an illusion. To me, material is not an illusion, but rather merely a canonization of concentrated spirit-stuff (ultra-minuscule EMR - "Affectance") and properly referred to as "matter" because it is the portion that matters more.

Existence (from Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

2a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds>

Interesting definition.

That is a part of my disappointment. Webster didn't actually define "existence". They stated that it is something that is independent of thought. Well okay, true, but that doesn't tell what it is, merely one of its properties.

Krishnamurti is saying that a hearer is required for sound to exist.

That would be defining sound", not "existence". He is actually saying that two things must exist with some kind of relation between them. And he is right.

Merriam-Webster is saying no hearer is required for sound to exist.

Again, that is just saying that sound is objective. It says nothing of what existence IS.

[Harbal]

The only thing that is going on here is several people giving their own definition of the meaning of a word. As with any word, the set of criterea that constitutes its definition is completely arbitrary.