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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.