Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

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.

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

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.

Ecmandu, stop being arrogant and derailing this thread. You are obviously not even smart enough to realise that you are derailing this thread.

Okay, piece by piece … can you handle a long series?

Every time you are talking about either you or I, we are most definitely OFF TOPIC, and actually “ad homonym”, technically a violation of the rules of the forum (not that such seems to matter).

No. It is not the same as saying that there is no zero, merely no zero affectance.

Actually, I have a thread in Science and Math explaining the nonsense of absolute zero for scalar qualias. No one has been disagreeing with me on that issue (although I would normally expect more). But that is not what the whole issue is about. That is only one small, very small, piece.

Explained already, but better do it again;
Any time we are discussing the person, either person, we are OFF TOPIC and in violation of the rules of this forum. It doesn’t matter to anyone how brilliant either you or I think we are or how dumb we might think the other is.
THEY
Do
NOT
CARE (not counting inner fun at seeing others argue about nonsense).
… and on this thread … is totally irrelevant.

Emm… no. Why zero doesn’t exist (even though that isn’t what I said) isn’t the same at all as why you are using the term improperly. I explained why you were using it improperly. I also stated that you weren’t going to change and we already knew that. I was right. It has nothing what so ever to do with this topic other than to confuse the language being intended.

That is, typically, 100% your imagination. I have not been anywhere even close to angry. Not even annoyed, merely not really interested in arguing over your language use when I already know that you aren’t going to listen (on top of it being merely another derailing of another thread to discuss YOU).

Already explained why that isn’t really true.

I appreciate that you agreed with one of the issues involved. But you seem to be agreeing for the wrong reason. If I was merely after getting everyone to agree with me, you would be highly regarded, regardless of your reasoning. But I am not an actual troll, seeking a following … never have been (I sure as hell wouldn’t come here for that). That is merely one of the very, very many presumptions that people make about any male making un-mainstream assertions, so as to keep the mainstream strong.

Quite unwittingly, when people criticize TOO MUCH, they actually support the mainstream collective consensus that they are usually trying to criticize. The world is not so simple as “good guys ↔ bad guys”. Good and bad come in layers and types, much like intelligence. And it takes some pretty serious intelligence to deal with it all (assuming that you are actually trying to accomplish anything worth while).

And btw;
Confidence: “I am very certain of what I say.”
Arrogance: “My opinion is more important/significant to people than yours or theirs.”

What is required is BOTH intelligence AND humility.

If you say affectance is EVERYHTHING, than YES, it means you’re saying there’s not zero. And tell Arminius that even though I made it personal, I’m on topic.

I understand this is a small part of your theory, you think affectance solves ethics of all things.