Measuring Existence

[JSS]

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.

It stops being arbitrary when at least someone can show why one definition is better than another. My issue is that existence has had no actual definition at all.

[Harbal]

It stops being arbitrary when at least someone can show why one definition is better than another. My issue is that existence has had no actual definition at all.

The definition of a word is always subject to the possibility of being modified and so must always remain arbitrary. To be useful, any definition needs to be accepted by all participants in any discussion which involves it, even then it is inevitable there will be some variation in any individual's precise understanding of it, particularly when the word in question stands for something other than the simplest of concepts. The definition of a word often changes according to the context in which the word is used. I would say the word "exist" is particularly prone to this.

[JSS]

It stops being arbitrary when at least someone can show why one definition is better than another. My issue is that existence has had no actual definition at all.

The definition of a word is always subject to the possibility of being modified and so must always remain arbitrary.

That is just nonsense. Do that and your entire language becomes meaningless in no time.

To be useful, any definition needs to be accepted by all participants in any discussion which involves it, even then it is inevitable there will be some variation in any individual's precise understanding of it, particularly when the word in question stands for something other than the simplest of concepts. The definition of a word often changes according to the context in which the word is used. I would say the word "exist" is particularly prone to this.

That makes more sense. But the problem remains that "exist" has never had a definition (that I can find). So I gave it one and gave the reasons for why it is a reasonable definition. And from knowing merely that one thing, a great deal of physics comes to light.

[Harbal]

It stops being arbitrary when at least someone can show why one definition is better than another. My issue is that existence has had no actual definition at all.

The definition of a word is always subject to the possibility of being modified and so must always remain arbitrary.

That is just nonsense. Do that and your entire language becomes meaningless in no time.

If you were gay 50 years ago you were simply cheerful but to be gay now means something quite different, thus illustrating that the definition of a word can change without the entire language becoming meaningless.
You seem to be treating existence as if it is something out there waiting to be discovered and investigated. Existence is a concept, what is contained within the concept is completely arbitrary.

[JSS]

The definition of a word is always subject to the possibility of being modified and so must always remain arbitrary.

That is just nonsense. Do that and your entire language becomes meaningless in no time.

If you were gay 50 years ago you were simply cheerful but to be gay now means something quite different,

Well if it is arbitrary, then you can just go ahead and use it as it was 50 years ago. Try it. See what happens.

thus illustrating that the definition of a word can change without the entire language becoming meaningless.

You never received high marks in dialectics class, did you.

You seem to be treating existence as if it is something out there waiting to be discovered and investigated.

And exactly what do you believe Science to be doing?

Existence is a concept, what is contained within the concept is completely arbitrary.

Haha ..

..Oookeeeyyy ... nevermind.

[Harbal]

Haha ..

..Oookeeeyyy ... nevermind.

OK, have it your way and look a fool. It matters not to me.

[Walker]

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.

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

Without the referenced medium, all else is becomes something else, which is a situation defined by parameters other than what defines all else. Within the situation of all else and not the situation of something else, since the referenced medium is part of all else, all else does not exist without the medium, which means that according to the premises, everything is in contact with everything.

This makes distance a degree of contact rather than a sequence of imaginary points in imagined space that separate awareness and awareness of. The degree of contact is set by (or found within) parameters between zero contact (theoretically impossible in the everything paradigm) and total contact.

[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.

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

Without the referenced medium, all else is becomes something else, which is a situation defined by parameters other than what defines all else. Within the situation of all else and not the situation of something else, since the referenced medium is part of all else, all else does not exist without the medium, which means that according to the premises, everything is in contact with everything.

This makes distance a degree of contact rather than a sequence of imaginary points in imagined space that separate awareness and awareness of. The degree of contact is set by (or found within) parameters between zero contact (theoretically impossible in the everything paradigm) and total contact.

Nothing that you could discern affects anything else directly. Affects must propagate from point to point. The combination of all of the propagating affects is "Affectance" and the medium in which all affects propagate.

[Walker]

Well, what about this, and that meth maniac Heisenberg?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[JSS]

Well, what about this, and that meth maniac Heisenberg?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

That is not about actual physics at all. It is about a math model, not physical reality. Nothing physical actually changes due to observation as long as they keep their figures out of the way.

In Quantum Mechanics, there is a common misconception that it is the mind of a conscious observer that effects the observer effect in quantum processes.

Entangled particles do not change in any way merely from being observed. They just play a word game to create the misconception that one particle changes due to observing the other one. It is just a word and mind game.

[uwot]

Affects must propagate from point to point. The combination of all of the propagating affects is "Affectance" and the medium in which all affects propagate.

I'm sure that makes perfect sense you, but I'm still not clear what you're claim is. There is no doubt that things are affected, 'how much' is the stuff of physics and to be fair, various physicists have done a pretty good job of measuring and describing the strength of different fields of influence. You can call it affectance, if you wish, but all such claims are epistemological, rather than ontological. We know what happens, but it seems to me that you are conflating 'what happens' and 'to what'. As I understand you, the medium is the message, whereas I, and recent developments in physics, particularly at CERN and LIGO, suggest that there is in fact a medium, and 'affects' are waves, perturbations, some distortion in that medium.

[Walker]

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.

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

Without the referenced medium, all else is becomes something else, which is a situation defined by parameters other than what defines all else. Within the situation of all else and not the situation of something else, since the referenced medium is part of all else, all else does not exist without the medium, which means that according to the premises, everything is in contact with everything.

This makes distance a degree of contact rather than a sequence of imaginary points in imagined space that separate awareness and awareness of. The degree of contact is set by (or found within) parameters between zero contact (theoretically impossible in the everything paradigm) and total contact.

Nothing that you could discern affects anything else directly. Affects must propagate from point to point. The combination of all of the propagating affects is "Affectance" and the medium in which all affects propagate.

These statements are not contradictory, btw.

[JSS]

Affects must propagate from point to point. The combination of all of the propagating affects is "Affectance" and the medium in which all affects propagate.

I'm sure that makes perfect sense you, but I'm still not clear what you're claim is. There is no doubt that things are affected, 'how much' is the stuff of physics and to be fair, various physicists have done a pretty good job of measuring and describing the strength of different fields of influence.

You are still not getting it. There are no "things" that are not merely clumps of noisy affectance, affects upon affects.

You can call it affectance, if you wish, but all such claims are epistemological, rather than ontological.

Absolutely not. The affectance field is an ontological element (a "stuff"), in the same way you think of an electromagnetic field (which happens to be made of the affectance field).

We know what happens, but it seems to me that you are conflating 'what happens' and 'to what'. As I understand you, the medium is the message, whereas I, and recent developments in physics, particularly at CERN and LIGO, suggest that there is in fact a medium, and 'affects' are waves, perturbations, some distortion in that medium.

Again, "what happens" IS what it is happening to. There is nothing else other than how much. And if you understood the logic, you would know that it seriously makes no difference what CERN suggests or says they saw.

And no, "we" don't know what happens. I do, and maybe they do, but certainly you and most people throughout the world do not.

[Harbal]

And no, "we" don't know what happens. I do, and maybe they do, but certainly you and most people throughout the world do not.

I think somebody's getting a bit too big for their boots.

[JSS]

And no, "we" don't know what happens. I do, and maybe they do, but certainly you and most people throughout the world do not.

I think somebody's getting a bit too big for their boots.

Yeah, but you still keep thinking that it is the other guy anyway. Throughout all of your posts, you give the very serious impression that you actually know nothing at all and post merely to try to feel good by trying to make others feel bad. You're a sociopathic gadfly.