Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

[Ecmandu]

anything higher than zero is infinitely larger.

The number 1 is infinitely larger than zero.

Those are misuses of the term "infinite".

There are an infinity of infinitesimals between two whole numbers, but that is not "an infinite difference" (unless you are an infinitesimal).

I don't think James has really thought this through

Hahaha

Yeah ... right ...

John Bannon would laugh at it

He didn't.
Like you, he just try to ignore it.

They're not misuses of the term infinite relative to ZERO James... infinitesimals don't solve the problem. John Bannon laughed at people all the time. He'd laugh at your proof of existence.

[James S Saint]

They're not misuses of the term infinite relative to ZERO James...

Yes, they are.

infinitesimals don't solve the problem.

Yes, they do and "it" is not a "problem".

John Bannon laughed at people all the time. He'd laugh at your proof of existence.

Well, I presented it to him .. and he didn't laugh.
But granted, he did try to use the laugh-at defense rather regularly.

Your misuse of the term "infinite" is in the fact that you do not refer to what it is that you have an infinity of. When you say that something is infinite, you are saying that it has no limit. If you say that the difference between 1 and 2 is infinite, you are saying that there is no limit above 1 such as to be able to reach 2. And yet we do it all the time, thus obviously there is a limit and thus not an infinity.

You can get around that sort of problem of limits only if you include an unlimited amount of something equally unlimitedly small. Each form of infinity, infinite and infinitesimal, cancel each other, yielding a realizable limit. That is how and why calculus works.

..which is also the resolve to all of the Zeno paradoxes involving infinite series.

[Orbie]

If, hypotheticals define validation of them, then yes, 1-2 is infinitely divisible. There is a point where it seems not to, but it brings in the variable of the accuracy of perceiving it. After a while it becomes improbable that the tortoise will overtake the
hare, because of the immesurability beyond a certain point of halving. But that is the only variable which can distinguish discernible small limits to others. Mathematically, there is no limit to either discernible nothingness to every thingness (infinity)

[Lev Muishkin]

Have you not yet figured out that numbers are not reality.
There are several things that numbers mean that are incommensurable with nature.
1=1 is incommensurable, because no two things are the same. There are no integers in nature and all maths depends ultimately on integers. Reality is analogue, numbers are digital.
There are no straight lines in nature.
Do I have to talk about Pi, irrational numbers...

The language of the universe is not Maths. maths is a human conceit.

[Ecmandu]

They're not misuses of the term infinite relative to ZERO James...

Yes, they are.

infinitesimals don't solve the problem.

Yes, they do and "it" is not a "problem".

John Bannon laughed at people all the time. He'd laugh at your proof of existence.

Well, I presented it to him .. and he didn't laugh.
But granted, he did try to use the laugh-at defense rather regularly.

Your misuse of the term "infinite" is in the fact that you do not refer to what it is that you have an infinity of. When you say that something is infinite, you are saying that it has no limit. If you say that the difference between 1 and 2 is infinite, you are saying that there is no limit above 1 such as to be able to reach 2. And yet we do it all the time, thus obviously there is a limit and thus not an infinity.

You can get around that sort of problem of limits only if you include an unlimited amount of something equally unlimitedly small. Each form of infinity, infinite and infinitesimal, cancel each other, yielding a realizable limit. That is how and why calculus works.

..which is also the resolve to all of the Zeno paradoxes involving infinite series.

Umm.. I'm not using the term infinite improperly. Relative to ZERO, everything is infinite... it has existential value vs. no existential value, this is binary, is is not a matter of infinitesimals, and even if it were, infinitesimals have SOME existential value. However!!!!!!! Relative to ZERO, every number (existent) is infinite in magnitude. The problem is that you're the one misunderstanding infinity, not me James.

[Arminius]

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.

There is no problem.

Maybe Galilei exaggerated when he said that mathematics is the language of the nature. Anyway. We - the humans - have no other choice than to use our language in order to explain the observed nature (universe), because this explanation can only be done by the use of the language we have (and we have no other), scientifically spoken: by the use of linguistics and mathematics - and the intersection of both is logic.

[James S Saint]

Umm.. I'm not using the term infinite improperly. Relative to ZERO, everything is infinite... it has existential value vs. no existential value, this is binary, is is not a matter of infinitesimals, and even if it were, infinitesimals have SOME existential value. However!!!!!!! Relative to ZERO, every number (existent) is infinite in magnitude.

Using the term infinity "Relative to ZERO", is improper .. and pointless.
... not to mention that you also use the term "relative to zero" improperly.

[Ecmandu]

Umm.. I'm not using the term infinite improperly. Relative to ZERO, everything is infinite... it has existential value vs. no existential value, this is binary, is is not a matter of infinitesimals, and even if it were, infinitesimals have SOME existential value. However!!!!!!! Relative to ZERO, every number (existent) is infinite in magnitude.

Using the term infinity "Relative to ZERO", is improper .. and pointless.
... not to mention that you also use the term "relative to zero" improperly.

If it's pointless how can I use it improperly. James HONESTLY! You yourself say that there cannot be non-affectance, but defend zero... and when I say everything relative to absolute zero is infinite you throw your arms up as if I'm speaking some alien language. I'm speaking perfect english, and it's logically consistent and sound.

[James S Saint]

If it's pointless how can I use it improperly.

Doing things improperly is what being pointless is largely about.

when I say everything relative to absolute zero is infinite you throw your arms up as if I'm speaking some alien language.

Yep.

I'm speaking perfect english, and it's logically consistent and sound.

Umm ... no.

In "perfect English" that is logically consistent and sound, when someone says "infinite", they are referring a quantity of something that is endlessly large. A quantity implies a group of lesser elements. What is the lesser element that stacks up endlessly to form 1 from zero? What about from 0.001 from zero?

Of what is any number larger than zero an infinite quantity?

I gave you a clue to the only chance you have of making sense of it. But you aren't going to do that. And we know that already. And this doesn't really have anything to do with Affectance Ontology. It is merely you refusing to learn how to speak English.

[Ecmandu]

If it's pointless how can I use it improperly.

Doing things improperly is what being pointless is largely about.

when I say everything relative to absolute zero is infinite you throw your arms up as if I'm speaking some alien language.

Yep.

I'm speaking perfect english, and it's logically consistent and sound.

Umm ... no.

In "perfect English" that is logically consistent and sound, when someone says "infinite", they are referring a quantity of something that is endlessly large. A quantity implies a group of lesser elements. What is the lesser element that stacks up endlessly to form 1 from zero? What about from 0.001 from zero?

Of what is any number larger than zero an infinite quantity?

I gave you a clue to the only chance you have of making sense of it. But you aren't going to do that. And we know that already. And this doesn't really have anything to do with Affectance Ontology. It is merely you refusing to learn how to speak English.

That's what I'm trying to explain to you James.... 0.0001 to zero is infinite. It's relative to ZERO!!!!!!!!!! Your not using your brain here, I don't know what your using, but it's not your brain.

[James S Saint]

So you just can't answer the question and we can leave it at that?

Just remember later that when I am explaining things, I am speaking a different form of English than yours.

[Ecmandu]

So you just can't answer the question and we can leave it at that?

What kind of reply is that to what I've written? Are we projecting here James?

[James S Saint]

Just remember later that when I am explaining things, I am speaking a different form of English than yours.

[Ecmandu]

Just remember later that when I am explaining things, I am speaking a different form of English than yours.

Umm... ok, that doesn't mean the the difference between zero and something non-zero isn't infinite. Your just being thick headed here James. This is basic logic.

[James S Saint]

Just remember later that when I am explaining things, I am speaking a different form of English than yours.

Umm... ok, that doesn't mean the the difference between zero and something non-zero isn't infinite. Your just being thick headed here James. This is basic logic.

Or, far more likely, you are merely reading me wrong .. assuming that you are reading me at all.

[Ecmandu]

Umm... ok, that doesn't mean the the difference between zero and something non-zero isn't infinite. Your just being thick headed here James. This is basic logic.

Or, far more likely, you are merely reading me wrong .. assuming that you are reading me at all.

Why is that far more likely? You said something that has zero affectance doesn't exist. I simply pointed out that the difference in magnitude between zero and a non-zero existent is infinite in expanse... and you flipped out. Maybe it's far more likely that you don't like to learn new things about infinity because you already think you know it all.

[James S Saint]

Umm... ok, that doesn't mean the the difference between zero and something non-zero isn't infinite. Your just being thick headed here James. This is basic logic.

Or, far more likely, you are merely reading me wrong .. assuming that you are reading me at all.

Why is that far more likely? You said something that has zero affectance doesn't exist.

You seem to keep reading only yourself, what you have surmised, and not listening to potential better alternatives to your thoughts. That prevents you from learning or understanding what other people are trying to say, especially after they shut you out entirely.

I simply pointed out that the difference in magnitude between zero and a non-zero existent is infinite in expanse... and you flipped out.

In detail, I explained why such a statement is improper. You seemed to have ignored my explanation or at least chose to disregard it. If you have a heart felt passion for inspiring people to think that you are completely off your gored and to be ignored, go for it. As for me, if you merely keep repeating what you think is supremely correct and void of reasoning, I just stop talking about it to you. I want to hear the reasoning, not the preaching.

Maybe it's far more likely that you don't like to learn new things about infinity because you already think you know it all.

Oh, I did learn what you meant by what you said. It took me awhile back when you professed that "1 = infinity", but I eventually figured out what your mind was doing to you. But you don't seem to want to hear about that.

Go ahead, use the term "infinity" how ever you wish .. It's your life.

[Ecmandu]

Why is that far more likely? You said something that has zero affectance doesn't exist.

You seem to keep reading only yourself, what you have surmised, and not listening to potential better alternatives to your thoughts. That prevents you from learning or understanding what other people are trying to say, especially after they shut you out entirely.

I simply pointed out that the difference in magnitude between zero and a non-zero existent is infinite in expanse... and you flipped out.

In detail, I explained why such a statement is improper. You seemed to have ignored my explanation or at least chose to disregard it. If you have a heart felt passion for inspiring people to think that you are completely off your gored and to be ignored, go for it. As for me, if you merely keep repeating what you think it supremely correct and void of reasoning, I just stop talking about it to you. I want to hear the reasoning, not the preaching.

Maybe it's far more likely that you don't like to learn new things about infinity because you already think you know it all.

Oh, I did learn what you meant by what you said. It took me awhile back when you professed that "1 = infinity", but I eventually figured out what your mind was doing to you. But you don't seem to want to hear about that.

Go ahead, use the term "infinity" how ever you wish .. It's your life.

You're misquoting me, 1=infinity relative to zero. Anything relative to zero is infinite in expanse. That was the point I made... and you're talking to me like I'm some childish moron who just doesn't "get it", James you're being obtuse.

[James S Saint]

you're being obtuse.

I believe that you are seeing your own reflection when you say that (a very common trait around these parts).

I know what you meant (finally). I explained why it is bad wording. You want to say it anyway, without explanation as to why (and only recently added the "relative to zero"). Who is really being "obtuse" and derailing a thread?

[Ecmandu]

you're being obtuse.

I believe that you are seeing your own reflection when you say that (a very common trait around these parts).

I know what you meant (finally). I explained why it is bad wording. You want to say it anyway, without explanation as to why (and only recently added the "relative to zero"). Who is really being "obtuse" and derailing a thread?

Because you need to work out your issue with zero if you're going to say there isn't one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I"m not derailing the thread. You said ZERO affectance has no existence, which is the same as saying zero has no existence. Those aren't my problems or assertions, those are yours.

[Ecmandu]

Why should I even bother to look at your ideas when the most on topic point of your thread is considered off topic by you? Do you really want to be that guy who lives in that bubble?

You should be honored that I'm discussing this with you James. You think you know so much about the world, and can't see when you're being honored right when it's in your face.

[James S Saint]

You should be honored that I'm discussing this with you James.

There is an important difference between confidence and arrogance.

[Ecmandu]

You should be honored that I'm discussing this with you James.

There is an important difference between confidence and arrogance.

Not really. Confidence includes knowledge or not and arrogance can either include knowledge or not.

The point is, I'm more on topic than anyone else in this thread. And you accused me of derailing it. Maybe you have ideology James, not the truth you seek.

[James S Saint]

Well, since we are obvious seriously off topic anyway, perhaps you can explain to me exactly why;

You should be honored that I'm discussing this with you James.

[Ecmandu]

Well, since we are obvious seriously off topic anyway, perhaps you can explain to me exactly why;

You should be honored that I'm discussing this with you James.

We're not off topic, you're being obtuse. You said that when there was zero affectance that there was no existence. This is the same as saying there is no zero. You should be honored because nobody else in this thread is smart enough to realize that this is a claim you're making: there is no zero. Apparently that's off topic to you. Probably because it conflicts with your ideology. You say I'm using infinity wrong, when I say that relative to zero everything is infinite... which is why you're saying zero doesn't exist in the first place, and then getting somewhat angry at me for pointing this out, which is absurd. If you actually look at this whole thread you'll realize that I"m the only poster on topic.