Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

The God particle?

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.

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).

:laughing: Hahaha :laughing:

Yeah … right :icon-rolleyes:

He didn’t.
Like you, he just tried to ignore it.

That is certainly true.

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.

Yes, they are.

Yes, they do and “it” is not a “problem”.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Doing things improperly is what being pointless is largely about.

Yep.

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.

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.

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

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.