Yes, U2, One Love… the whole. I think the cosmos is infinite, and when dealing with the infinite, you need division of labor to represent it all (an infinite number of beings each without the total picture), you can’t have one being process, say, the counting numbers, only an infinite number of beings can do this. There’s also no infinite tree, that is the biggest one… there are an infinite number of trees where one is always bigger than the other… but one whole tree doesn’t subsume all these other trees. It’s like Plato’s division of labor.
The universe is oriented towards community and not the ONE, the ONE WHOLE. And it doesn’t make sense in many respects to talk about the universe as anything other than an unfathomnable multiverse.
I think that “homogeneity” is the wrong word for what you are talking about. The idea that all-affects-all is something that science accepted very long ago. It seems intuitively obvious. To me, it doesn’t really matter whether it really is true or not, so I didn’t bother with forming a proof.
Science accepted the notion merely because it was accepted that all gravity and electric fields were infinite. Beyond that presumption there would also be the fact that everything is within at least one other field that is being affect by another. And that kind of chain would not be able to be broken without getting extremely far away from all things. Even the galaxies don’t get that far away from each other.
In RM:AO, it would be a little easier to prove. Every affect in AO travels a straight line influencing every other affect that happen to be crossing that line that that time. So, for example, every photon traveling between the stars affects countless other photons on its journey simply because they crossed paths. And then because each of those photons was affected by the first, whatever minor affect they obtained carries on to be a part of their own affect upon countless others traveling perpendicular to their paths. The number having been affected by the first grows exponentially at an almost infinite rate.
Due to the fact that there can be no space anywhere that is void of affectance, it would be quite impossible for that one photon or affect to travel any distance at all without some minuscule portion of its influence being spread throughout infinite space. Of course the amount of influence that it has had grows exponentially lower at an almost infinite rate.
And the kind of influence a propagating affect has on transverse traveling affects is merely one of time delay. And that is how the gravity field gets formed. It is through the affectance field or gravity fields that each and every affect, no matter how small or great, propagates a degree of affect upon every other affect. Snuff out one single match and through time the entire universe knows about it.
I read it. As already indicated on other threads, you and I have a different mind when it comes to the concept called “infinite”. But I agree that the “labor” is certainly distributed. And so should the governance be.
I stated my very clearly, would you mind stating yours and why you believe it? I gave you the reasons I believe mine. We agree that all affectance must be different from all other affectance… do you believe though, as I mentioned earlier in the thread that this distinction is infinite? I’m curious.
Another point to consider is the idea of affectance between truly far away dimensions, even if, it could be argued, regardless there is some measure of it everywhere, op would not be the limit of unmeasurable its reduce it to nil?
As infinite distance is approached, would not affectance also reduce to nothingness, making the idea virtually non existent?
No. Affectance doesn’t diminish over distance. Between concentrations of affectance (galaxies, stars, and planets) the affectance field gets thin/unconcentrated (although there is still dark-matter). But there is no infinite empty space between galaxies.
There is the possibility that we live in a “local universe” with ultra-extreme distance between each distant local universe. In such regions, the affectance would reduce to a minimum, but never zero.
I have very little to say about very wide questions like that… i think ultimately we can’t really know, it’s metaphysical. And maybe more important, i don’t think is all that important.
What is important is to know what effect us, and in what way. I don’t think RM - Affectance helps at all, because it seemingly sees all things in terms of one homogeneous goo of affectance (as is something is explained that way!), and then seemingly reifies that concept into something real (waves of affectance et al…). A raindrop affects me in another way that a car hiting me, that’s the kind of thing i need to know.
In a generic sense of, having less effect. Or, the idea, that there is an equivocal limiting of these effects toward a null effect. I do understand that this would not nullify the affect.
One thing I have been thinking about to support Your argument is the recent discovery of a far away galaxy at the very periphery of the limits of the known universe as far away in light years as the age of the supposed universe is, something like 14 billion years.
this would support the idea, that measurability is a function of the status of advancement in the technology of the tools of measurement. Aid so, carried to its logical conclusion, Your theory would hold up even in the most remote areas of affectance, given the use of a large enough step up energy converter.
Here, the use would be for such a tool, the magnification of one type of energy source for another. So, there is a large uncertainty here.
It’s not approaching infinity that is the problem… it is infinity that is the problem. For example, anything higher than zero is infinitely larger. The number 1 is infinitely larger than zero. Because there’s a zero between 1 and 2, the number two is infinitely larger than the number 1, but has the same infinite largeness as the difference between 0 and 1 and 2.
When dealing with infinite distribution… it’s not possible for things to come together. which also calculates as nothing at all. This works the same as everything being the same and being nothing at all. I don’t think James has really thought this through, though I do agree that affectence is existence, I don’t think his proof of affectance is very good… John Bannon would laugh at it. He would suggest that there’s no reason why we cannot exist, given James’ “proof”.
My proof for existence is that if non-existence was itself, it would have to exist… (the non-existence of non-existence) and when existence exists, you have the existence of existence… two negatives always cancel each other out with identity. That’s one of my proofs for the necessity of existence, and is not something John Bannon would laugh at.
It’s also fundamentally an aether theory… unless all the objects of the aether are different it won’t work. The question is whether they are infinitely different.
There must be at least one element that’s both similar and different in near infinite sets in order to make sense of either. Something like one particle , while in simultainty a wave. To that gradients would or could not apply, it transcends limits.
The statement that there is an “inifinite difference” between two sequenced numbers is similar to the statement that a real physical contact between two bodies or particles is not possible because of the charges of their electrons on both outside lanes of both atoms: both charges are negative (each electron always has a negative charge).
But we know that 0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 2, and so on, and we know that we can have contact.
We know that but we don’t know why. No matter how you cut it, the distance between 0 and 1 is infinite. Saying 0+1=1 doesn’t actually solve that problem. That’s like saying 0+infinity equals infinity. Perhaps you can get around it by saying there is no such thing as zero.
Hahaha 